Madeleine McCann

[666]

Apparently "Portugal has been praying" for her safe return. I'm wondering how long it will be before a self-proclaimed "psychic" offers to help. Any thoughts, folks?

[666]

Just noticed this thread...
http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=896

Feel free to delete/lock this one. Ta.

[Araneus]

They had a "day of prayer" a while ago for the genocide in Darfur, and I remember thinking at the time what an utterly useless way to spend your day. If people care about Darfur, they should do something useful about it, not sit on their ass talking to an invisible man in the sky.

It's the same with all of these things, candlelight vigils etc. It just seems like a way for people to feel that they are making a difference without actually having to expend any real effort.

[Admin]

I've been following the thread on the GMTV forum. It's actually quite frightening to think that some of the respondents are eligible for jury duty!!

The abundance of emotional thinking and lack of critical thinking is quite shocking. It seems the victims are to blame for this crime happening to them. ::)

Some have even called for the parents, who are doctors, to be struck off and even prosecuted.

There also seems to be a powerful 'anchoring' effect where people are only focusing on the issue of whether the parents should have left their children whilst going out for a meal. All other aspects of this crime are being overlooked.

The naïve thinking seems to go along the lines of: if the parents had stayed in the apartment then this crime would never have happened.

Unbelievable.

[BeverlyM]

A most interesting article appears as follows:

2 May 2007:

www.newmonster.co.uk (http://www.newmonster.co.uk)

Police turn to pyschics to solve crimes. Excellent evidence and more
than enough to quash the idea that the police do not at times use this
resource to help their enquiries.

[vbloke]

A most interesting article appears as follows:

2 May 2007:

www.newmonster.co.uk (http://www.newmonster.co.uk)

Police turn to pyschics to solve crimes. Excellent evidence and more
than enough to quash the idea that the police do not at times use this
resource to help their enquiries.
Beverly, how many times do we have to point you to the links that clearly state that the police DO NOT use psychics?

These statements are from the police themselves, gained under the FOI Act.

Let's try again:
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=police_and_psychics.php

That link you provided is dead. Did you mean http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/content/view/183/72/ ?

If so, you might want to read
http://www.tonyyouens.com/ruislip_murder.htm

Let’s look once again at Holohan’s information. Anthony Ruark was already identified as a major suspect at least two days before Holohan wrote down his nickname, “Pokie”. According to both McKinlay and Lundy it was common knowledge that he was a suspect and apart from his arrest he had been seen hanging around both Jacqui Poole’s flat and her place of work. Holohan only lived about three miles from the murder scene and and less than one and a half miles from The Windmill pub. It would be entirely possible to discover much of this information from local gossip. Due to a similarity in their age it is quite likely that they moved in similar social circles and it may be that Holohan knew something about either Ruark or Poole long before the murder had taken place. We cannot even be certain that a close friend or even Jacqui Poole herself had not consulted Holohan in her capacity as a psychic. In Lundy's final report he wrote that, "of all the people interviewed Ruark was still the most likely person to have committed the murder."A search of the Daily Mail archives shows no such story as quoted by News Monster, although his name does come up against these stories in the Daily Mail:
The factory farm tigers being turned into wine
Suburban poltergeist: A 30-year silence is broken
The Angels of Death
Could spiritual healing actually work?
Miracles or madness?
Sushi - the raw truth

and these in New Scientist:
Carbon nanotubes show drug delivery promise
Pollen cast in starring role as micro-scaffolding
Teenagers face health timebomb
Forty-second ecstasy tablet test developed
Mineral sieve filters out carbon from flue gases
Microsoft monoculture allows virus spread
Singapore man caught SARS in lab
Epilepsy drug helps beat cocaine addiction
First power station to harness Moon opens
Smart glue could spell the end for solder
Geraniums the key to cheap nanoparticles
Cracks appear in China's giant dam
Flattest star puts astronomers in a spin
Micrococktails should be striped, not stirred
Spiders weave a web of light

Odd that none of them in a respected Science journal mentions anything to do with ghosts or psychic powers.

[Admin]

Police turn to pyschics to solve crimes. Excellent evidence and more
than enough to quash the idea that the police do not at times use this
resource to help their enquiries.

The url is here: http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/content/view/183/72/

How is that story (for that's all it is) 'excellent evidence'?

It's just a collection of claims that can't be examined and as such they do not constitute evidence at all.

This is what evidence is about: Do the police use psychics? (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=police_and_psychics.php)

Notice how the query is included and each and every response is given with a time and date, the name of the force responding, and the name of the officer responding.

Here's the real key though: anyone else can either double-check that what we've printed is real or anyone else can just as easily ask the same police forces for information regarding their use of psychics with Freedom of Information requests.

This is the difference between simply making claims and actually providing evidence to back up a conclusion on matters.

[Admin]

Here's another corking article from the newsmonster: http://www.newsmonster.co.uk/content/view/133/72/

A list of subjective accounts printed by a believer. I wonder if Danny Penman has tape recordings of these readings. It would be interesting to do a discourse analysis and work out the information flow.

I also like the false dichotomy at the end. There is of course another possibility: that Danny has been fooled by his strong sense of confirmation bias and subjective validation because he doesn't have a clue about the psychology of psychic readings.

I liked this too:


Above all, the fact that we cannot understand how psychics such as Sally operate does not mean that they are not genuine. Argument to Ignorance (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=argumentum_ad_ignorantiam.php) - my favourite fallacy!! :cheesy:


I remain as confused as ever about how Sally was able to provide so many accurate details about my own life. But I have come to the conclusion that only the foolish mock what they cannot comprehend.I'd say it's foolish to mock others when you yourself admit to your own ignorance.

The illusion of psychic ability is not incomprehensible and some people who've looked into it properly (i.e. not simply looking to confirm their own beliefs) understand perfectly well how people are fooled by it all.

[BeverlyM]

I can see that you are really trying to present your own evidence.
That's fine. But it does seem to me that we have very different interests and perspective on this whole matter. I found the Newsmonster piece authentic; you did not (yes, it was from a
newspaper but it quoted a police officer legitimately and yet you
don't even accept that).

I'm not asking anyone to accept 'spiritual beliefs or philosophy' - only
to accept the possibility and concept that as humans we may have
more than three dimensions. Unfortunately, I cannot as yet send you evidence of this in a cardboard box.

As for Dr. Peter Fenwick - a brilliant pioneer in my view and a wonderful
man. Your colleague may have another view but I wonder if he has read all of Peter Fenwick's work and evidence. Probably not.

It is really not my wish to continue this discussion - I have no need to convince you or anyone of my personal beliefs. I am however engaged in the wider field of healing and medicine, where an openness to
complementary approaches is beginning to receive wider interest and
the basis for research. That matters to me in terms of helping people.
I have seen personally over more than 25 years how some people with a very poor prognosis indeed have been helped to recover their health.
This has included forms of healing which the general medical profession
are beginning to recognise as potentially valuable - but only in the hands of dedicated and trained professionals. The model of the person in complementary approaches is related to body, mind, spirit and feeling. I do agree with you on one point; this field is urgently in need of academic and clinical research, and that is my personal area of interest. With best wishes.

[vbloke]

I can see that you are really trying to present your own evidence.
That's fine. But it does seem to me that we have very different interests and perspective on this whole matter. I found the Newsmonster piece authentic; you did not (yes, it was from a
newspaper but it quoted a police officer legitimately and yet you
don't even accept that).
So you would choose to believe a tabloid news story from a non-major news outlet over the word of the Police themselves, that's fine. At least we know where you stand on "standards of evidence".

Individual Police Officers may indeed go to psychics and consult with them, but as you can clearly see, it is not, and has never been the official policy of the Police to use psychics as they can slow down and even hamper Police investigations due to the conflicting and erroneous information these psychics provide.


I'm not asking anyone to accept 'spiritual beliefs or philosophy' - only
to accept the possibility and concept that as humans we may have
more than three dimensions. Unfortunately, I cannot as yet send you evidence of this in a cardboard box.
But you are - by posting the links you have, you are asking for our unquestioning and and uncritical acceptance of psychic and spiritual phenomena.

If you cannot provide evidence for your beliefs, then how can you possibly hope to argue your case?


As for Dr. Peter Fenwick - a brilliant pioneer in my view and a wonderful man. Your colleague may have another view but I wonder if he has read all of Peter Fenwick's work and evidence. Probably not.
Again, in your view. We have shown you and provided you with evidence that, whilst he may be "wonderful man", his workings and conclusions can be shown to be fatally flawed and the product of wishful thinking.

Have you read all of Dr Fenwick's work? All of it? Probably not.


It is really not my wish to continue this discussion - I have no need to convince you or anyone of my personal beliefs.
Then why come here, post what you have, ask for our belief in the things you believe and then provide anecdotal evidence in lieu of actual evidence in an attempt to convince us?


I am however engaged in the wider field of healing and medicine, where an openness to complementary approaches is beginning to receive wider interest and the basis for research. That matters to me in terms of helping people.
We are very open to complimentary health practices where they can be shown to work. Implying otherwise is just an attempt to make us sound bad.

Anecdotes do not evidence make. They are the beginning, not the end of what we demand as good standards of evidence.


I have seen personally over more than 25 years how some people with a very poor prognosis indeed have been helped to recover their health.
This has included forms of healing which the general medical profession
are beginning to recognise as potentially valuable - but only in the hands of dedicated and trained professionals. The model of the person in complementary approaches is related to body, mind, spirit and feeling. I do agree with you on one point; this field is urgently in need of academic and clinical research, and that is my personal area of interest. With best wishes.
I applaud your willingness to help people, although you have to understand that never has the notion of spirit ever been properly defined, and many forms of alternative or complimentary therapies use spirit in very different and contradictory ways.

If you want to show us that this spirit can indeed be manipulated to cure people, you first have to
a) prove this spirit exists
b) demonstrate a method it can be manipulated
c) provide evidence that this manipulation works
d) provide evidence and workings of how the manipulation works.

I have never received an answer, despite asking many times, that people who claim they can "feel" and "realign" or "manipulate" someone's spirit, that they know that they are not actually causing harm.

Every treatment has the possibility of side-effect - manipulation what is, in essence, someone's life force, could have potentially lethal effects.

[Admin]

But it does seem to me that we have very different interests and perspective on this whole matter.

I'm not asking anyone to accept 'spiritual beliefs or philosophy'

I have no need to convince you or anyone of my personal beliefs.

Isn't this the crux of the matter? Belief versus fact.

As skeptics we deal in facts. When it comes to the potential use of psychics in missing persons cases and unsolved murders we would not say it's worth using them because someone believes that they just might have the powers they claim; we would look at the facts behind their claims and as the facts do not match their claims then they are not worth using.

That's apart from the additional issue of their other motivations for getting involved like gaining publicity.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, to make good decisions that maximise the chance of successful outcomes on issues we need to deal with factual, evidence-based solutions. If we make important decisions based on faith, belief, wishful thinking, etc., just because we personally believe they might possibly be true (often despite the factual evidence) then you're going to make very poor decisions: decisions that actually reduce the chances of a successful outcome.

[tkingdoll]

Bloody hell the Pope is in on it now.

Any more woo to add to this case?

[Araneus]

I'm surprised more people aren't sick of the publicity. It's one child FFS, not an international crisis.

People continually yapping on about how they "hope and pray" that she will be found strikes me more as a form of emotional masturbation than anything else; a way of congratulating oneself for being such a sensitive, caring person, without actually doing a damn thing to improve the lives of anyone else.

[Allo Allo]

I'm surprised more people aren't sick of the publicity. It's one child FFS, not an international crisis.


They are probably VERY sick of it - I know I am - but it's not "nice" to admit it!

I think the McCanns have "celebrity" faces - and enough confidence to make big waves - my heart goes out to all the little "plain" people out there who are still wondering what happened to THEIR children who are missing and who never even got a press report!

M

[Araneus]

I think the McCanns have "celebrity" faces - and enough confidence to make big waves

Yeah exactly, the problem is that making enough big waves tends to piss people off. My opinion of the McCanns swung from "devastated parents" to "self-important media junkies" at around the time they got footage of pwettie liddle Maddie displayed at Wembley Stadium.

Oh, and there is of course the Catholic part. You know, how they are good, righteous, faithful people who bad things shouldn't happen to.

[chillzero]

The problem now is that all this publicity makes it unlikely that anyone who stole her to sell on will now be able to do so. This publicity could actually be her death sentence.

What irks me most is that there are other missing people who are not receiving the same attention or financial assistance. Such a huge reward for one individual *might* be enough to make a paedophile ring member rat out another, but it hasn't happened so far... That money could be better spent on facilities for tracing other lost and missing persons, or providing assistance to those on the streets, or their families.

[Molly]

"Emotional Masturbation"

What a brilliant description! It drove me to despair when Diana died and I am almost at the end of my tether with it now. Whatever has happened to our Nation? Where has self respect and dignity gone? For Heavens sake one child goes missing (well nearer 300 but who the heck has noticed the others?) and it's like the end of the world is nigh!!

But... aside from the woo factor, I LOVE the irony of the McCanns having an audience with the pope (the lack of capitalization is deliberate) ... given his long and documented history of hiding and moving RC church paedophiles around to avoid their being convicted, where better to look for the child than the vatican? ;D

[Matt]

But... aside from the woo factor, I LOVE the irony of the McCanns having an audience with the pope (the lack of capitalization is deliberate) ... given his long and documented history of hiding and moving RC church paedophiles around to avoid their being convicted, where better to look for the child than the vatican? ;D

Ah yes that explains one thing that has been bothering me about this papal favour. Somehow the parents have managed to leave their other children during this pilgrimage. I'd have taken them with me. After what happened to their eldest, in their sistuation I'd probably never let the twins out of my sight for my own peace of mind. however there's also the issues of abandonment that the twins might feel after recently comming to the realisation that the elastic link between parents and children can sometimes be permanently severed.

It just beggars belief that these parents could bear to leave leave their children alone again.

Of course that was before you pointed out the dangers of a collection of preists all displaying the scitzoid behaviour of an imaginary friend alongside the psychotic catalyst of years of repression from forced celibacy, in a manner consistent with many reported cases of abuses of power over innocent children.

Yes now I see it like that it's the last place I'd ever bring children. Thinking of it like that though it's the last place I'd want to go myself.

[RubyRedRose]

I've been following the thread on the GMTV forum. It's actually quite frightening to think that some of the respondents are eligible for jury duty!!

The abundance of emotional thinking and lack of critical thinking is quite shocking. It seems the victims are to blame for this crime happening to them. ::)

Some have even called for the parents, who are doctors, to be struck off and even prosecuted.

There also seems to be a powerful 'anchoring' effect where people are only focusing on the issue of whether the parents should have left their children whilst going out for a meal. All other aspects of this crime are being overlooked.

The naïve thinking seems to go along the lines of: if the parents had stayed in the apartment then this crime would never have happened.

Unbelievable.


You are probably correct..................................the flip thinking is, had the parents been present, the crime would have been impossible in the specific case of Madeline!

[Araneus]

You are probably correct..................................the flip thinking is, had the parents been present, the crime would have been impossible in the specific case of Madeline!

That is useless counterfactual speculation. If they hadn't gone to Portugal, she probably wouldn't have been abducted. If the parents hadn't met, Madeleine would never have been born and couldn't possibly have been abducted. In fact, why not blame the midwife that delivered her? After all, if she had been starved of oxygen and therefore died at birth, none of this would have happened.

[RubyRedRose]

That is useless counterfactual speculation. If they hadn't gone to Portugal, she probably wouldn't have been abducted. If the parents hadn't met, Madeleine would never have been born and couldn't possibly have been abducted. In fact, why not blame the midwife that delivered her? After all, if she had been starved of oxygen and therefore died at birth, none of this would have happened.


Actually that was my first post and it was aimed at making a link in the mind of it's recipient, and it most certainly did!

[Allo Allo]

Actually that was my first post and it was aimed at making a link in the mind of it's recipient, and it most certainly did!
Meaning what?:ponder:
M

[RubyRedRose]

Meaning what?:ponder:
M


That I got what I wanted?

[Jocky]

That I got what I wanted?

Which was?

[chillzero]

You are probably correct..................................the flip thinking is, had the parents been present, the crime would have been impossible in the specific case of Madeline!

Not necessarily.
I have heard people discuss suspicions of the parents.

The whole hoo-ha over their perceived neglect of the children conveniently detracts attention from whether they had the ability to orchestrate this.

[Admin]

You are probably correct..................................the flip thinking is, had the parents been present, the crime would have been impossible in the specific case of Madeline!

Hi, and welcome RRR. O0

Yes that's been a very common thing that people have been either saying or implying. It's as if had the parents been present then this crime could never have occurred. i.e. the presence/absence of the parents is the only factor that this crime hinges upon. That, of course, is absolutely ridiculous.

All it would have done is reduce the chances of them taking Madeleine but not eliminated the possibility. If the abductors had managed to get in and take Madeleine without waking the twins (as seems to be the case), what reason is there to think the parents would have heard it if they were in another room (possibly with the TV on)?

And, if they couldn't get Madeleine, they were there with malicious intent so would possibly have used another opportunity to get her (if she had been specifically targeted) or taken another child in her place; in which case, we'd still be shocked by an abduction and the event would not have seemed to be any different.

It's the abductors who are responsible for, and to blame for, this crime (!) The parents' absence from the apartment may have been a contributory factor in it being Madeleine who was taken (rather than another child) so they do have to take a share of the blame for that, but it was the malicious intent of the abductors that was the reason that this crime occurred.



NOTE: it's still uncertain as to what really happened so the scenario is speculative here; but the public reaction to this crime is very real.

[RubyRedRose]

Hi, and welcome RRR. O0

Yes that's been a very common thing that people have been either saying or implying. It's as if had the parents been present then this crime could never have occurred. i.e. the presence/absence of the parents is the only factor that this crime hinges upon. That, of course, is absolutely ridiculous.

All it would have done is reduce the chances of them taking Madeleine but not eliminated the possibility. If the abductors had managed to get in and take Madeleine without waking the twins (as seems to be the case), what reason is there to think the parents would have heard it if they were in another room (possibly with the TV on)?

And, if they couldn't get Madeleine, they were there with malicious intent so would possibly have used another opportunity to get her (if she had been specifically targeted) or taken another child in her place; in which case, we'd still be shocked by an abduction and the event would not have seemed to be any different.

It's the abductors who are responsible for, and to blame for, this crime (!) The parents' absence from the apartment may have been a contributory factor in it being Madeleine who was taken (rather than another child) so they do have to take a share of the blame for that, but it was the malicious intent of the abductors that was the reason that this crime occurred.



NOTE: it's still uncertain as to what really happened so the scenario is speculative here; but the public reaction to this crime is very real.


Nothing to disagree with there!:cheesy:

[Legaleagle]

Just walking through town this afternoon I saw a market stall that sells Hamburgers inviting people to "tie a yellow ribbon round the stall for Maddie" (why?) . Plenty of people were going up and tying these ribbons on. Now am I just cynical, or was the burger guy attracting more attention to his stall than usual?

Helping people indulge in Emotional Masturbation- certainly.

Cynical commercial exploitation- could be.

[Molly]

"And, if they couldn't get Madeleine, they were there with malicious intent so would possibly have used another opportunity to get her (if she had been specifically targeted) or taken another child in her place; in which case, we'd still be shocked by an abduction and the event would not have seemed to be any different."

All very true, but I have yet to be convinced that anyone entered the apartment at all, let alone with the intention of abducting a child.

Change the scenario to another, just as likely ... Child wakes, looks for parents but can't find them, goes looking for them and ends up wandering to the local supermarket where she is picked up and targeted by an opportunistic paedophile. Yes the paedophile is still ultimately responsible but the parents absence was a catalyst.

On another point - Regardless of the scenario or outcome the McCann parents deliberately and knowingly broke the law, both of Portugal and the UK - should they, or should they not, face the legal consequences of doing so? >:D

[Allo Allo]

Change the scenario to another, just as likely ... Child wakes, looks for parents but can't find them, goes looking for them and ends up wandering to the .......... what about the beach? How far away is that? Maybe she went "swimming"? Or fell over a cliff?


On another point - Regardless of the scenario or outcome the McCann parents deliberately and knowingly broke the law, both of Portugal and the UK - should they, or should they not, face the legal consequences of doing so? >:D

I wonder how many parents are thinking "There for the grace of God go I"! (Nothing to do with God - just a figure of speech!

[Molly]

what about the beach? How far away is that? Maybe she went "swimming"? Or fell over a cliff?

Or fell down a disused well, into a ditch, crawled into a drainage pipe or an abandoned fridge ... the world is a pretty hazardous place for a 3 year old out on their own, even without factoring in an opportunistic paedophile.

I wonder how many parents are thinking "There for the grace of God go I"! (Nothing to do with God - just a figure of speech!

Too many for comfort probably, but isn't that an emotional response that doesn't change the basic fact that the law was broken?

[Araneus]

What law was broken?

[Molly]

I'm given to understand that in Portugal it is illegal to leave a child of under 12 years at home alone.

In the UK the law is a little fuzzier - there is no legal age that a child may be left at home alone but if you are putting the child at risk then you are guilty of neglect - and leaving babies or toddlers home alone for any length of time at all is considered to be putting the child at risk (sources: NSPCC; section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 )

[RubyRedRose]

Meaning what?:ponder:
M


Having taken on board advice here (and not wishing to divert the subject in any way), may I clarify?
The reaction I was looking for was a penny dropping with a site user, who duly did contact me and realise who I am on another forum.

It was NOT meant to be confrontational in any way.

[Allo Allo]

The plot thickens! See this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1913175.ece)

"The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was in chaos last night after the detective coordinating the hunt for her abductor was charged with criminal offences over another notorious missing child case."

M
:knitter:

[flatliner]

Here's one to keep this thread active:

http://www.roscommonherald.ie/news/story.asp?j=6205&cat=news

I can't wait for John's review.;D

[Admin]

Here's one to keep this thread active:

http://www.roscommonherald.ie/news/story.asp?j=6205&cat=news

I can't wait for John's review.;D

Well I think even your review would be just as damning as mine. ;)

[Jocky]

I wonder how many parents are thinking "There for the grace of God go I"! (Nothing to do with God - just a figure of speech!

Me, for one. There are no words to express the horror of leaving your kids alone and then someone running off with them. I too have a cute four year old daughter :scared:

It is a nightmare balance to strike: you do not want to expose your children to any risk, but yet your own life must go on. People are notoriously bad at accurate assessment of risk - leaving your kid alone under the circumstances the McCanns did is probably far less risky than transporting them in a car (sorry, no source on this assertion - I am open to correction).

"There but for the grace of Randi", perhaps :cheesy:

[Allo Allo]

"There but for the grace of Randi", perhaps :cheesy:

Oh NO! not RANDI!:eek3:

M

[Araneus]

Maybe Randi can help find Madeleine; I am sure he is good at pulling lost objects out of hats and closets.

[jool1969]

I've been following the thread on the GMTV forum. It's actually quite frightening to think that some of the respondents are eligible for jury duty!!

The abundance of emotional thinking and lack of critical thinking is quite shocking. It seems the victims are to blame for this crime happening to them. ::)

Some have even called for the parents, who are doctors, to be struck off and even prosecuted.

There also seems to be a powerful 'anchoring' effect where people are only focusing on the issue of whether the parents should have left their children whilst going out for a meal. All other aspects of this crime are being overlooked.

The naïve thinking seems to go along the lines of: if the parents had stayed in the apartment then this crime would never have happened.

Unbelievable. I cannot believe you think the parents are the victims here, surely its poor madeline, she didnt ask to be left alone in an apartment in a strange country with her little twin sister and brother, why her parents left them all to have a meal!!!!, i dont know what you profess to be, but above all, put aside the risk of abduction, i would never dream of leaving my little ones alone, to go out and eat, my son would wake up screaming because of a night mare and it took all of 10 seconds for me to reach him, but he would still be distraught, my point is, that madeline is the victim here, and if the parents were in the apartment there would have been no abduction!, we as parents are here to protect our children and leaving them on their own no matter how short a time is not good parenting

[Admin]

I cannot believe you think the parents are the victims here

Are you saying they aren't victims of this crime?


if the parents were in the apartment there would have been no abduction!

Sorry but that's the sort of naivety I'm talking about.

See post #26 above.

[CalamityKate]

I am a parent and I cannot imagine the Hell that Madeleine's parents are going through. Plus of course what Madeleine herself is going through.

I can honestly say, hand on heart, that I would not have left my children alone in the apartment. To be honest, the thought of them being snatched would have been the last thing on my mind - I would have been more worried about them waking up in an unfamiliar room, scared. Checking on them every half hour or whatever, to me, would not have been enough because what if they woke up 30 seconds after I checked them? They would then have had 29 minutes alone, scared, possibly panicking.... no, I wouldn't have done it.

BUT.... every parent makes an assessment of risk and acts on that, hundreds of times a day. I cannot, as a reasonably compassionate person, agree with anyone who makes comments about the parents "deserving" their pain... or any other such comment. The parents are dying inside, I guarantee that and they do not need, or deserve, any more torture than what they are already feeling.

Not saying that anyone on this thread has made such comments, btw (I haven't read the whole thread) but certainly on other forums I visit, the hard-heartedness of some of the comments have staggered me.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I am a parent and I cannot imagine the Hell that Madeleine's parents are going through. Plus of course what Madeleine herself is going through.

I can honestly say, hand on heart, that I would not have left my children alone in the apartment. To be honest, the thought of them being snatched would have been the last thing on my mind - I would have been more worried about them waking up in an unfamiliar room, scared. Checking on them every half hour or whatever, to me, would not have been enough because what if they woke up 30 seconds after I checked them? They would then have had 29 minutes alone, scared, possibly panicking.... no, I wouldn't have done it.

BUT.... every parent makes an assessment of risk and acts on that, hundreds of times a day. I cannot, as a reasonably compassionate person, agree with anyone who makes comments about the parents "deserving" their pain... or any other such comment. The parents are dying inside, I guarantee that and they do not need, or deserve, any more torture than what they are already feeling.

Not saying that anyone on this thread has made such comments, btw (I haven't read the whole thread) but certainly on other forums I visit, the hard-heartedness of some of the comments have staggered me.


I agree with you. Visiting Sky News forums or even worse, the Daily Mirror, you just see one extreme view or the other. I might sound like a Daily Mail reader O0, but this country is going to the dogs regarding logical and critical thinking.

It seems these days you have to stick to one side of the argument on every issue, there is no middle ground.

I blame the media a lot for that. You've got tabloid newspapers pushing one particular line. You've got the politically correct BBC, who will always try to show both sides of the argument - even with something as absurd as the new Creation Museum in the US, they still try to balance their reporting. Even the arguments you see in the media about Political Correctness - you are either 'for' or 'against' it, god forbid any sensible discussion about the issue in hand.

Anyway, I digress, but in this case, the parents have made a serious error of judgement, bhowever it's not their fault there are such evil people around. They aren't the only people who leave their kids alone, and I don't see it as being that much different from the case of kids playing out of their parent's sight, even if only for a very short time. They will have to live with that forever. However the people who are so quick to criticise them anonymously on the net would appear to me to be the bitter and jealous type. I'd like to see their 'perfect' lives opened up for criticism - we'd see how hypocritical they were then. Plus there is a lot of jealously because the McCanns are middle class and have worked hard to have good careers and a big house.

Anyway, I just had to get that of my chest.

[CalamityKate]

Yes, that's another thing which piddles me off.

People who seem to assume that because the McCanns are well off, that somehow they deserve less sympathy. On the other hand, you get the people who think they deserve MORE sympathy - that somehow, being posh makes the decision to leave the children in the apartment more reasonable.... then there are the people who seem to resent the fund set up for anyone who wishes to donate, in a way that they maybe wouldn't if the parents were both unemployed and poor.....

Oh, and of course there are the people who criticize their demeanour... "They don't seem that upset! They aren't crying enough! I would be crying more!!".... it goes on and on...

I don't care how rich they are, how posh. I don't expect them to behave in any particular way .... they are going through hell and my heart aches for them.

[Araneus]

then there are the people who seem to resent the fund set up for anyone who wishes to donate, in a way that they maybe wouldn't if the parents were both unemployed and poor.....

Very interesting that you say that: in all probability, if the parents were unemployed or poor we would never have heard about the story in the first place.

I have no real criticism of the McCanns, but I have been disgusted by the pointless public circle-jerking that has accompanied the story. Every tedious non-event in the case has been followed by a flurry of ineffectual online emotionalists trying to out-do each other's feeble platitudes: "Please, please give her back!" -- "No, please please please please please please give her back!" -- "No, please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please give her back!!!!!11111111!!!".

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Very interesting that you say that: in all probability, if the parents were unemployed or poor we would never have heard about the story in the first place.

I have no real criticism of the McCanns, but I have been disgusted by the pointless public circle-jerking that has accompanied the story. Every tedious non-event in the case has been followed by a flurry of ineffectual online emotionalists trying to out-do each other's feeble platitudes: "Please, please give her back!" -- "No, please please please please please please give her back!" -- "No, please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please give her back!!!!!11111111!!!".


I blame Diana, Princess of our Hearts :'(

[CalamityKate]

"Princess of our hearts"

Why did she have to die? Why, why??????? :'(

[Matt]

Why did she have to die? Why, why??????? :'(
Because she ignored advice to wear a seatbelt, she ignored advice about getting a lift from somone who'd been drinking and allowed said chauffer to break the speed limit.

Well you did ask.

[CalamityKate]

So typical of Her... always thinking the best of people and too polite to say "I say Dodi - is it me or does the chauffeur smell like a brewery??"

She lived for others, you know.

[Julia]

As if the first outbeak of Dianarrhoea wasn't bad enough we're now being treated to the tenth anniversary of her Assumption...

Seriously, I think the orgy of cheap sentiment that greeted the Blessed One's death - with more than a little help from the tabloids - really has left its mark on our society. I'm sick of two-minute silences, flowers and toys left at the sites of murders and fatal accidents, candle-lit vigils and those bloody ribbons. I'm sick of being asked to waste time and effort praying for people.

I have no doubt that the McCanns are going through hell and I sympathise with them, but the media circus surrounding Madeleine's abduction strikes me as distasteful and counterproductive. And I find it astonishing that a couple paying good money to stay at a resort that falls over backward to cater to the needs of parents with young children chose to leave their kids alone when they went out for a meal. A working-class couple who did this would be crucified by the tabloids - why should two doctors be given an easier ride?

[Araneus]

I'm sick of two-minute silences, flowers and toys left at the sites of murders and fatal accidents, candle-lit vigils and those bloody ribbons.

Don't forget those stupid "Missing Madeleine" posters -- as if somebody stopping for petrol on the A31 miraculously has some useful information about her disappearance in Portugal, and has somehow managed to remain entirely ignorant of her identity and appearance despite the near-continous media coverage.


I'm sick of being asked to waste time and effort praying for people.I know what you mean, the ridiculous belief that somehow a public frenzy of collective hand-wringing is going to bring her back is quite nauseating.

[bindeweede]

So typical of Her... always thinking the best of people and too polite to say "I say Dodi - is it me or does the chauffeur smell like a brewery??"

She lived for others, you know.

Or you might say she was a not-very bright, naive, publicity-seeking fashion-victim.

[Molly]

May I canvass logical opinion here?

If one considers the following two options, then is there a difference in the degree of parental culpability in the McCann case?

1. Madeleine is taken from her bed, deliberately and with forethought and planning while her parents are dining out.

2. Madeleine wakes, finds herself alone, leaves the apartment in search of an adult and encounters some kind of opportunistic evil.

Of course the person ultimately to blame is the hypothetical abductor, but to my mind the initial risk factors vary quite considerably. Whilst one would not expect an intruder to steal ones sleeping child, it is quite within the realms of normal childhood behaviour to expect a lone child to wake up and go wandering in search of a parent.

The abduction from the apartment scenario has yet to be proven, despite the fact that it is portrayed as 'fact' by the parents and British Media, so surely any arguments re parental responsibility that are based on this assumption are to some degree flawed?

[dotcommentator]

Yes, I would tend to agree. It's within the realms of foreseeable reality that a child would wake and wander. The parents claimed they were checking every twenty minutes so they were alive to that possibility.

We're now seeing the second disappearance of Madeleine McCann, this time it's from the media. The story no longer seems interesting to them.

[blubird]

Does anyone here think they will actually find her???

Does anyone think shes actually still alive??

I hope she is but because of the length of time now and the fact that she is a very high profile little girl surely counts against her now.

[Araneus]

Does anyone here think they will actually find her???

I'm pretty sure I won't. I checked in my kitchen cupboards several times, but she definitely wasn't there.

[blubird]

;D;D;D;DO0

Very good LOL

[KenThis]

The thing that gets me is how they simply gloss over that fact that they left two TWO year olds and one THREE year old alone in an apartment with the doors left open and went to eat at a restaurant not in an Hotel, not even in a gated complex but in the street!


And I am stunned at the number of people on this site that say we’ve all done it at times !?!


Have these people LOST THEIR MINDS !!!!


Anything could have happened to these children through a simple accident, to a fire, one of them being sick and choking on their own vomit, even before you consider something more extreme.


PARENTS do not leave children of this age on their own FULL STOP.


As a parent of three children myself one of whom is a three year old I know that you have to watch them at all times in case they swallow something, have an accident, or are put at risk in some other way.


Talking of the overdose theory four points occur to me.


1) Before doctors sedate or anaesthetise there is a period before this that you mustn’t eat or drink anything because there is a big risk of the recipient being sick.


2) How likely is it that these children who we’re told were routinely put to bed at six O’clock (while on their holidays can you imagine) were prevented from eating any snacks for several hours beforehand?


3) Could having sedatives night after night have had a cumulative effect?


4) Is it possible that, if the medication was purchased locally, instructions written in Portuguese might have been misread or misunderstood?

[KenThis]

The McCanns make much of the Portuguese secrecy laws but I wonder if this is simply convenient for them.

When they were made formal suspects we are told that between them they refused to answer 40 or so questions put to them by the police.

We are potentially talking about child homicide here a very serious crime not some sort of tax investigation.

If you watch any of those reality TV police shows you’ll notice that in the UK the police don’t say “You have the right to remain silent” when they arrest someone.
Instead these days they say something to the effect “It may harm your defence if you fail to say now anything which you later rely on in court”

I think the Portuguese police with help from the British police where necessary should insist on answers to these 40 or so questions or the inference should be taken such that it most certainly harms their defence.

If necessary they should be asked to volunteer to take polygraph tests (lie detector tests).

I also think that the group of friends who were with the McCanns when they dined out on that fateful night should be re-questioned thoroughly. Some friends they would turn out to be if they had got involved in this but none the less the possibility cannot be excluded.

The possibility of child homicide is such an abhorrent crime, like paedophilia, that the British public are not content to let any perpetrators escape justice by hiring expensive lawyers, refusing to answer questions, and hoping to get off on some legal technicality.

They were quite happy to woo the British public and seek their approval for their fund raising campaign and so they must now seek the approval of the British public regarding these allegations.

The British public demand to know the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth in this case, we owe it to Madeline.

[brianp]

If the rumour sweeping through Portugal this morning is correct then we may be nearer the truth. The rumour is that a body has been found - reporters are said to be flocking back to the area in droves.

http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=14019

[Admin]

I still can't believe that so many people are still fixated with the "they left the kids alone" aspect of this crime as if it was the cause of the crime and the only bit of wrongdoing that went on. It would have been a contributory factor in the abduction scenario but it certainly didn't cause the crime.

Funny how the abductor(s) never get a mention.

Even those who are convinced that the parents are guilty of doing it are also still going on about "they left the kids alone". ::) If the parents killed their own daughter how was this caused by "leaving them alone"? It makes absolutely no sense at all to mention it as it can't possibly have anything to do with that scenario.

[Cuddles]

Even those who are convinced that the parents are guilty of doing it are also still going on about "they left the kids alone". ::) If the parents killed their own daughter how was this caused by "leaving them alone"? It makes absolutely no sense at all to mention it as it can't possibly have anything to do with that scenario.

I suppose if it was an accidental death caused by the parents it's possible they could have prevented it if they'd been there. For example, they could notice something wrong with the child due an overdose and call an ambulance, rather than there being no-one to help at all. Obviously leaving them couldn't be the sole cause of death, but it could certainly have been a contributory factor.

[Admin]

If they'd overdosed her without realising it and then gone out they would never have known she was dead until they got back. The body would still be there.

The theory is that she died before they went out and then developed this time-shift ruse to save their skins.

[Matt]

If necessary they should be asked to volunteer to take polygraph tests (lie detector tests).

Ahem.

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=polygraph_or_lie_detector.php

[siestatime]

I read somewhere (I think it was in every single English newspaper) that the new McCann publicity campaign is going to concentrate on Spain and Portugal, well here in Spain there isn´t quite so much sympathy flowing as in the UK, especially since the father flounced out of an interview.

People now ask me if it´s normal for English parents to sedate their kids >:-)

In the interest of science, I asked my mother if she had ever given me a sedative, her reply?

"No, but there was one memorable plane journey to Hong Kong when you were three ..."

Sedate me? I´m still amazed she and the other passengers didn´t throw me out of the plane.

[tkingdoll]

I am the only one sort of enjoying the whole thing? I am very sorry that the child is dead, of course, and all the pain that goes with it, but the soap-opera style storyline is fascinating.

I suspect a lot of people are finding this latest development quite exciting because they secretely suspected the McCanns from the start.

And there's no denying that most missing children cases turn out to be the parents. It's certainly a more likely scenario than the abduction.

[siestatime]

NO, tkingdoll, I don´t think you are the only one who is "sort of enjoying" the whole thing, but you certainly are one of the few who actually admits to it.

I´ve worked with children for many years, and have a son of my own. Child murders/abductions are deeply abhorrent to me. However, this particular case has more in common with a film script than real life, and we are all just eagerly waiting for the next episode.

[bindeweede]

I am the only one sort of enjoying the whole thing? I am very sorry that the child is dead, of course, and all the pain that goes with it, but the soap-opera style storyline is fascinating.

I suspect a lot of people are finding this latest development quite exciting because they secretely suspected the McCanns from the start.

And there's no denying that most missing children cases turn out to be the parents. It's certainly a more likely scenario than the abduction.

I know you are an administrator here, but with respect, how do you know the child is dead? I've checked all the news channels, and as far as I know, that has not been confirmed. But I might have missed something.

Please tell me I am wrong.

And there's no denying that most missing children cases turn out to be the parents. It's certainly a more likely scenario than the abduction

Sorry??

Edit. Well, I can't have checked ALL the news channels, but you get my drift.

[Matt]

I know you are an administrator here, but with respect, how do you know the child is dead? I've checked all the news channels, and as far as I know, that has not been confirmed. But I might have missed something.

Please tell me I am wrong.

And there's no denying that most missing children cases turn out to be the parents. It's certainly a more likely scenario than the abduction

Sorry??

Edit. Well, I can't have checked ALL the news channels, but you get my drift.

Well lets see there's the Cadaver dog evidence. The DNA from the car boot and the fact that even were it an abduction case statitistically she's likley dead by now.

No not confirmed but a very reasonable assumption.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

One of the Independent weekend papers quoted figures that in the UK, 90% of child deaths are due to someone the child knows.

Also, only 6% of child abductions are by someone the child doesn't know.

I'm haven't investigated the sources for those, but they certainly indicate the likelihood.

You can't apply these statistics to an individual case obviously, but it does indicate where the criminologists will start looking. Even the much maligned Portugese police must have an idea of this.

I don't think anyone is necessarily saying we know she is dead for sure, but the chances of her being alive are minimal and certainly at odds with the PR line being spun by the Find Madeleine campaign. I don't know whether they take that line because if they didn't their campaign would struggle for support. If it was my daughter though, I wouldn't want to give up either.

[tolman]

One of the Independent weekend papers quoted figures that in the UK, 90% of child deaths are due to someone the child knows.

Also, only 6% of child abductions are by someone the child doesn't know.

I'm haven't investigated the sources for those, but they certainly indicate the likelihood.

You can't apply these statistics to an individual case obviously, but it does indicate where the criminologists will start looking. Even the much maligned Portugese police must have an idea of this.

From a skeptical point of view, those figures might give hints, but there seem likely to be huge confounding factors.
In the first place, many child deaths come to light immediately. After even a few hours of a child being reported missing, with no obvious suspect, the 90% figure seems likely to be close to meaningless - what might be useful would be figures on actual abductions vs. fake claims of abductions.

Secondly, many child abductions seem likely to be by an estranged parent after divorce (or similar) where it's immediately apparent who is known or likely to be responsible. To be any use, figures would have to exclude such cases.

Effectively, even by the time the police were contacted, the statistics were likely to have been obsoleted by the information available, since many of the most common scenarios adding to the figures could already have been ruled out.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I think you are reading a bit too much into those figures, I only posted those them for indicative purposes and if they are accurate they are at a high level and can't be applied to an individual case. The point is, that regardless of how large or small those percentages are, they do illustrate that there is good reason that those who know the child will be regarded with suspicion. Of course in the case of an alleged abduction, it doesn't matter what the statistics are initially, resources are going to be diverted to looking for an abductor.

Anyway here is the source, I've no idea where they are quoting from or what the controls on the statistics are.



That said, statistics show it is right and proper than the couple should be under scrutiny in this case – 90 per cent of murders in this country are domestic and just 6 per cent of abducted children are removed by paedophiles or someone unknown to them.


http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2941843.ece

[tolman]

I think you are reading a bit too much into those figures, I only posted those them for indicative purposes and if they are accurate they are at a high level and can't be applied to an individual case. The point is, that regardless of how large or small those percentages are, they do illustrate that there is good reason that those who know the child will be regarded with suspicion. Of course in the case of an alleged abduction, it doesn't matter what the statistics are initially, resources are going to be diverted to looking for an abductor.
I guess competent police anywhere would at the very least question anyone closely involved in any serious case, and would be unlikely to rule out anyone out of hand. In that sense, it certainly doesn't matter what the statistics are.
By the time any necessary initial questioning has been done, the police should at least have some information and a set of possibilities to pursue, and it could be that statistics could be as much a hindrance as a help in that.

If anything, where statistics could be most use is in the direction of limited resources for things like searches - if you can't search everywhere, you could look in the likeliest places as determined from past cases.

[Scottish_Girl]

Well lets see there's the Cadaver dog evidence. The DNA from the car boot and the fact that even were it an abduction case statitistically she's likley dead by now.

No not confirmed but a very reasonable assumption.


With respect, surely if any of this 'evidence' was factual, instead of being blurry media speculation, the McCanns would have been charged by now. (If, as your post suggests, evidence of death, i.e the childs dead body was in the boot of the McCanns hire car.)

Reports I have read suggest the cadaver dog 'evidence' could be from the fact that Mrs McCann frequently came into contact with dead bodies in her role as a GP, and that if a dead body had been in the car boot it would have been awash with irrefutable DNA evidence, not just a couple of hairs without the roots and what would appear to be a peed (or vomited) on seat.

[Admin]

It's certainly a more likely scenario than the abduction.

I actually think that the abduction scenario is more likely than the parents did it one. ???

Just Occam's razor - I think there are far too many unlikely and implausible assumptions needed to make the parents did it scenario work.

There's zero decent evidence in either case though so it's impossible to pick.

[Scottish_Girl]

What's the skeptic opinion on Astrology?

Personally I think it is a load of guff. ;D

However, I found these on another forum. It would appear astrologists were linking Madeleines disappearance to the parents from the first day...according to her birth charts, and before any DNA evidence. Also a number of people have said that when she is found, she will be near a body of water. There are also some incredibly way out and quite frankly disturbing suggestions on the first link...just to warn you.

I have every sympathy with the parents and hope she is found soon and this post is not intended to be insensitive. Just thought it might be an interesting topic if any of the suggestions prove to be correct.

http://gryphonastrology.wordpress.com/2007/05/25/the-astrology-of-missing-people-madeleine-mccann

http://collaboratingwithfate.blogspot.com/2007_05_27_archive.html

[tolman]

What's the skeptic opinion on Astrology?

Personally I think it is a load of guff. ;D

However, I found these on another forum. It would appear astrologists were linking Madeleines disappearance to the parents from the first day
As were several battalions of internet armchair detectives.
Given no other names at the time, any random loser could say "I reckon the parents did it!" and feel a whole load of unjustified (and deeply distasteful) pleasure if they were proved right when evidence actually arose, and if not, could always fall back on the "They're still responsible for leaving her alone" angle and still get a warm glow of self-satisfaction.

Personally, I'd reckon a great deal of what I've read from both 'psychics' and mere mortals would best be called sickening, but that would be doing a grave disservice to the name of vomit.

[Admin]

Personally, I'd reckon a great deal of what I've read from both 'psychics' and mere mortals would best be called sickening

I'll second that.

I find it really hard to believe what some people are coming out with based on zero evidence.

The venomous and vitriolic comments from people based on things like "he looks a bit shifty" or "she's not showing enough emotion" beggars belief.

The need for skepticism and rationality is very much highlighted by those who can pronounce guilt based on what they see, read, or perceive - even though there's zero evidence available.

Such people are eligible for jury duty - now there's a worry if you're actually accused and innocent but someone thinks your eyes are set too close together.

Guilty M'Lud - he looks a bit shifty to me.

[tolman]

The venomous and vitriolic comments from people based on things like "he looks a bit shifty" or "she's not showing enough emotion" beggars belief.
I guess the internet is some kind of factor here.
What people may think to themselves, or chat about in private with people they know is one thing, but some people don't really seem to understand the divide between private and public is well and truly crossed when publishing thoughts where anyone can see them.

[Cuddles]

Also a number of people have said that when she is found, she will be near a body of water.

Near a body of water? In Portugal? That fairly narrow country surrounded on three sides by a body of water? Who'd have thought it?

[vbloke]

What's the skeptic opinion on Astrology?

Personally I think it is a load of guff. ;D
Astrology, you say?
http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=zodiacal_astrology.php

http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=astrology_and_precession.php

[Molly]

With respect, surely if any of this 'evidence' was factual, instead of being blurry media speculation, the McCanns would have been charged by now. (If, as your post suggests, evidence of death, i.e the childs dead body was in the boot of the McCanns hire car.)

Reports I have read suggest the cadaver dog 'evidence' could be from the fact that Mrs McCann frequently came into contact with dead bodies in her role as a GP, and that if a dead body had been in the car boot it would have been awash with irrefutable DNA evidence, not just a couple of hairs without the roots and what would appear to be a peed (or vomited) on seat.

Much of course IS blurry media speculation ... with a large part of it being fed by 'leaks' from the PJ, and 'sources close to the family'. Time will of course tell - but, given the high profile of the case and the unusually high level of Govt involvement, I find it hard to believe that the PJ would be pushing the investigation so hard in this direction if they did not have very good reason (including forensics) to do so.

In line with the Skeptical nature of this forum - I do have to question JUST how many cadavers Kate McCann can have come into contact with in the run up to her holiday! A part time locum GP, who works 2 days a week coming into contact with SIX dead bodies (when these days most deaths are certified by hospital doctors) ... is she Harold Shipman for heavens sake? ^-^

Just how much DNA would be left in a car boot from a small and well wrapped body is beyond my ken - a large number of factors would doubtless be involved, and we do not, of course, yet know exactly what WAS found - cuttings of hair and urine are speculation from the UK press, and not verifiable.

[Cuddles]

In line with the Skeptical nature of this forum - I do have to question JUST how many cadavers Kate McCann can have come into contact with in the run up to her holiday! A part time locum GP, who works 2 days a week coming into contact with SIX dead bodies (when these days most deaths are certified by hospital doctors) ... is she Harold Shipman for heavens sake? ^-^

Death certificates are often done by whoever happens to be available. It's quite possible that she would have seen them all in one day if whoever usually did them had arranged for her to cover. For example, my mother works in public health and isn't a practicing doctor at all, yet she has still done her share of death certificates. Of course, since they are publically available, official documents it shouldn't be too hard for the police to check this.

[tolman]

Much of course IS blurry media speculation ... with a large part of it being fed by 'leaks' from the PJ, and 'sources close to the family'. Time will of course tell - but, given the high profile of the case and the unusually high level of Govt involvement, I find it hard to believe that the PJ would be pushing the investigation so hard in this direction if they did not have very good reason (including forensics) to do so.
The police aren't responsible for the high profile of the case. If they basically hadn't found anything worthwhile, given the high profile they might well think they have to be seen to be doing something.

The whole arguido thing could simply be part of questioning over potential neglect investigations, or even just an attempt to save face after discovering little or nothing by throwing a little doubt around.

[bindeweede]

According to the People and Sunday Mirror, the McCanns have called in Colin Fry and Gordon Smith to help find Madeleine. I thought right from the child's disappearance, they rejected help from psychics. I wonder if this is desperation or a sort of conversion.

[Admin]

According to the People and Sunday Mirror, the McCanns have called in Colin Fry and Gordon Smith to help find Madeleine.

Well if those papers have reported it, it must be true!. :cheesy:

If it's true, we'll have to keep an eye out for prognostications from Colin (don't mention the trumpet (http://www.tonyyouens.com/colinfry.htm)) Fry (Britain's #1 medium) and Gordon Smith (Britain's #1 medium). O0

We'll see if they're any better than psychicsarah. ;D

I bet she's gutted they didn't call her in after all her efforts!!!

[bindeweede]

Gordon feels "a virbation in his aura", apparently.

The article from the People is here.....

http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=maddie-mccanns-call-in-psychic%26method=full%26objectid=19870779%26siteid =93463-name_page.html

[tolman]

From the People article:



Philomena said last night: "At the start of the campaign to find Madeleine, Gerry said that no stone would be left unturned when looking for her. Seeing a psychic is just part of turning more stones."Generally, under stones, I tend to find various fairly unattractive examples of animal life.

In any case, what people might do if they're desperate is one thing. Whether it's likely to be of the slightest use is quite another.


And this is not the first time he [Colin Fry] has been asked to help track down a missing person.

He was once part of a team of telly psychics who joined forces to find the spot where missing Irish girl JoJo Dullard is buried.

They targeted the same piece of land her family have spent years campaigning to have searched.To me, that sounds like the psychics agreed with what people already thought, which would make one would wonder whether the psychics already knew about it. Doesn't sound like they actually helped, or even added any new suggestions.


His [Gordon Smith's] celebrity clients have included former EastEnder Michelle Collins and one-time Brookside babe and Strictly Come Dancing star Claire Sweeney.So he's catering for the intellectual end of the market, then?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

The thing I don't understand is why they have to get 'called in' or 'asked' to help.

If they had any ability, they would just find her.

Unless there is an unwritten rule that you have to be polite and wait to be asked for your powers to work, however that hasn't stopped Psychic Sarah or her like from posting all over the internet.

[bindeweede]

More on the McCanns here..............



http://badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/modules/news/article.php?storyid=542

[tolman]

The thing I don't understand is why they have to get 'called in' or 'asked' to help.

If they had any ability, they would just find her.

Unless there is an unwritten rule that you have to be polite and wait to be asked for your powers to work, however that hasn't stopped Psychic Sarah or her like from posting all over the internet.
Presumably being 'asked to help' is something they can go on about even if they do nothing at all helpful.
'Psychic'Sarah certainly mentions 'helping' the Irish Police in a missing person's case as some indication of her talents, even though she didn't seem to do anything helpful in that case.

I'm puzzled what use there is in the family talking to psychics.
Even if the psychics reckon they have something useful to say, unless the Portuguese police take them seriously they'd still be wasting their time, and I don't see how one or other family member talking to a psychic makes that psychic any more credible to the police (unless the police think the parents may have imparted some useful information to a psychic that they may not have mentioned before).

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

There was a story in the NOTW today about a family who are trying to get some graves exhumed because psychics have told them thats where a missing girl is buried.

TJ Higgs was mentioned, but I don't know if it was a rehash of an article about one of the episodes of Psychic Private Eyes. Either way, there seems no limit to the depths that psychics will sink.

[bindeweede]

Is this offensive, simply tasteless, or humorous?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91210-1291195,00.html

[bindeweede]

Is this offensive, simply tasteless, or humorous?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91210-1291195,00.html



He went on: "I think it's funny, and you can laugh about it if you have a satirical tradition in your country, like Germany."

Not a necessary post, but so bloody sick of the Amway saga.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

For a start, forget the sensitivities, it's just not funny.

Not even remotely.

[bindeweede]

For a start, forget the sensitivities, it's just not funny.

Not even remotely.

I agree, totally. Having had a few holidays in Germany, I think Germans do have a sense of humour, but it might be slightly different from our own. But this advert/article is not a good example.

[siestatime]

That bypassed the good taste chip, IMO.

[bindeweede]

That bypassed the good taste chip, IMO.
Yes , of course. And the British tabloids would never publish anything lacking in sensitivity or taste. Would they...?

[siestatime]

Yes , of course. And the British tabloids would never publish anything lacking in sensitivity or taste. Would they...?

Of course not. They´re British. ;)

[Admin]

It's utterly tasteless IMO.

[MischiefMonkey]

I don't mind tasteless. But it just wasn't funny.:sad:

[onlysense]

is this the way forward for parenting? Leave your children to fend for themselves? Alone in an aprtment aged 2 & 3, driving a quad bike down a country lane in the dark aged 7? 21st century parenthood, Yeah, right.

[Julia]

With the exception of the quad bike I think that's a fairly adequate description of much pre-20th century parenting. ::)

[Spetznatz]

I agree, totally. Having had a few holidays in Germany, I think Germans do have a sense of humour, but it might be slightly different from our own. But this advert/article is not a good example.

Well I bloody live there, and believe me, this is as good as it ever gets...

And that bit about "having a satirical tradition, like in Germany..." FFS, seven channels are showing Dinner for One (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=K6UtT8NDW8Q) tonight, like they've done every bloody year since the late Cretaceous...in English.

Why?

Make them stop. Please.