Jump to content

Recommended Posts

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue. You were directly responsible for the removal

> of the previous thread. Some people don't have to

> read every thread but moderators and admin do

>

> You can surely see this thread will end up in the

> same place. You said yourself at the start of this

> one you weren't going to get sucked in again but

> you surely have

>

> Learn the lessons from last time. Heed your own

> advice. Listen to people telling you to let it go


xxxxxx


Eh? I asked for the removal of the previous thread myself, and I didn't start this one.


I have been very careful not to get drawn in by the likes of certain posters who I will not name, so what do you think I have been sucked into, exactly?


Why am I not allowed to state facts - not theories - which are in the public domain elsewhere?


Why are people so keen to lay into me, when other posters are continuing to post on the topic?


If you want the thread to disappear, then why don't you tell people the reason and delete it, or ask that it be deleted?


What exactly have I said that is so terrible? Please can you give me some examples. Thanks.


ETA: If you intend to close all discussion on this case, then can I suggest that you have a forum rule that no cases of child disappearance can ever be discussed here, just so that everybody is quite clear :)

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree with you Sue, SJ is being harsh ( or

> fatherly :) )


xxxxxx


Thanks Mick Mac.


Glad he (or she) isn't my father :))


ETA: Though come to think of it, my father was equally patronising on occasion - when I was a child.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Short memories people short memories

>

> Why exactly did you ask for that thread to be

> deleted sue can you remember?

>

> What is Likely to be different this time?


xxxxxxx


As I have already said above (short memories?), I asked for it to be deleted because a troll registered on the forum specifically to post on the thread and make accusations which were almost certainly libellous.


Given the propensity of the McCanns to set Carter Ruck on people, and given this country's libel laws (set to change thank goodness) I didn't want the forum involved in any sort of trouble, or to give admin any grief.


OK?


ETA: And I'd quite like an answer to the questions I asked you above :)

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> for @#$%& sake. stop.

>

>

>

> *loses will to live*

>

> *hangs onself from monkey puzzle tree on the Rye*


xxxxxxx


Why are you continuing to read the thread then, Woodrot?


Sincere question.


Easy answer to losing the will to live would be to read something else, wouldn't it?


:)

Exactly SJ. This is never going to be a balanced debate. This, like last time, is just one person forcing her view on others, a view based on the threory put forward by Amaral in his book. A book that was decided by a judge to be based on no hard evidence whatsoever. When anyone posts anything that reasonably challenges that theory, like for example why cadaver dogs can not be relied upon without supporting forensic evidence (of which none was found following the use of the cadaver dogs in the McCann case)(and look at the use of the same dogs in the Jersey Childrens Home case and the following media reporting - all of which had to be retracted) that person isn't interested in considering any of it.


Entirely agree with ratty. Losing their child is the highest price the McCanns could have paid for not having used a babysitter that evening.

Anyway, now I'm going to go and do other things, so you can all have a lovely time slagging me off whilst I'm gone.


Enjoy :)


Or of course you could follow your own advice and not keep posting on the thread, so it disappears :)


ETA: And DJKQ, as I have said, I am not going to be drawn in again by you.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I said it did not constitute

> neglect.

>

> To blame these parents for the crime of another is

> wrong.


Of course the fu*king parents are to blame. Because of their f*cking laziness and need to drink and dine rather than look after their children, one is most probably dead.



Neglect:

verb (used with object)

1.

to pay no attention or too little attention to; disregard or slight: The public neglected his genius for many years.


2.

to be remiss in the care or treatment of: to neglect one's family; to neglect one's appearance.


3.

to omit, through indifference or carelessness: to neglect to reply to an invitation.


4.

to fail to carry out or perform (orders, duties, etc.): to neglect the household chores.


5.

to fail to take or use: to neglect no precaution.

As I see it there are several different issues here.


1. Are the parents at least partly to blame? IMO Yes. When you have small kids you don't leave them alone unless you're a moron, and it is neglect of the worst kind. It is possible the child would have been snatched at another time, but don't make it bloody east FFS!


2. Should the parents be punished for it? They have been in the worst possible way, they have lost a daughter.


3. Is Sue like a dog with a bone? Yes


4. Does DJKQ love any opportunity to row with Sue? Yes


5. Can either of them just rise above it and not have the last word? Hell No!

This thread reminds me of Basil and his 'don't mention the war' sketch in Fawlty Towers. Basil (in this case Sue) can't help but mention it to a group of Germans (most of the rest of you) who might feel uncomfortable with the subject (possibly because you are parents yourselves).


My opinion is the parents were at fault for not looking after their children properly. If they feel the guilt that I imagine most parents would, then that is a life sentence. I doubt there is a parent here who hasn't made a mistake with their children, though hopefully not with similar consequences.


As humans we find it very easy a lot of the time to be judge and jury. Maybe it's because we are harsh on ourselves.

woodrot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> for @#$%& sake. stop.

>

>

>

> *loses will to live*

>

> *hangs onself from monkey puzzle tree on the Rye*


*hangs self off woodrots lifeless foot*


(only to realise i'm kneeling down under his corpse with a limp rope around my neck*

applegreen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There's always hope!!!!


Indeed, there is.

Ben Needham, missing since 1991

Katrice Lee, missing since 1981

Kevin Hicks, missing since 1986

Sandy Davidson, missing since 1976


Sadly, there are hundreds, most of who are not household names.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • @Pereira Neves "Cuppa with a Coppa" is a misrepresentation as PCSOs are not real police.   They have no more powers of arrest that any public citizen. They may have the "authority" to advise the regular police of a crime - just like Joe Public. One exception is that they can issue fixed penalty notices to people who cycle on a footpath. We see people cycling on the footpath every day but have never seen a PCSO issue a fixed penalty notice to anybody. No  qualifications are needed to become a PCSO.  At best, all they do is reassure and advise the public with platitudes.      
    • Right.  Already too many people saying “labour pushed for longer and more stringent lockdowns” which if nothing else, does seem to give credence the notion that yes people can be brainwashed    Nothing ...  Nothing Labour pushed for was about longer lockdowns.  Explicitly, and very clearly they said “lock down early OR we will be locking down for longer “   ie they were trying to prevent the longer lockdowns we had   But “positive thinking” and “nothing to see here” from Johnson led to bigger problems    as for the hand-wavery about the economic inheritance and markets being spooked by labour budget - look - things did get really really and under last government and they tried to hide it.  So when someone tries to address it, no one is going to be happy.  But pretending all was tickety boo is a child’s response 
    • What would you have done differently, Rockets? I cannot, for the life of me, think of a financial strategy that would have satisfied 'working people' and businesses and driven growth and reduced the deficit. But I'm no economist. On another note, since we're bashing Labour, one thing that really got my goat was Labour's reaction to  Kemi Badenoch being elected leader of the opposition. When our own dear Ellie Reeves was asked for her reaction to KB's election, the first thing she said was "I'm proud that she's the first black woman to lead a political party, but..." Congratulating someone for being black (she's Nigerian FFS, not 'black') and female is such an insult. You'd be forgiven for thinking that that's all Labour sees... and it completely detracts from her achievements as a politician. It's almost as if they were implying that she'd done well in spite of her race and sex. If that's not racist... I think Kemi is an absolute nut job. People in her own party have said she'd start a brawl in an empty room and would cross the street to bite your ankle. But that kind of makes me like her. And if anyone can hold Labour's feet to the fire, she can.  (Ex labour party member here, who voted Keir for leader of the party, BTW, in case anyone wants to start a pile-on and call me a Tory lover). 
    • Their comms has been diabolical. The "son of a toolmaker" and "working people" soundbites may have placated an electorate before an election but they will come back to haunt you after it and will bite you hard if things don't go well.  If they don't improve things soon it is going to be a long parliament for them and there are no signs things are getting better. Amazing as they had 14 years to prepare for this but being in opposition is far, far easier than running a country.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...