PM: To Kate McCaan

[shaunbhoy]

you can't change the fact that due to their behaviour something has happened to Madeleine.

I have no doubt that very same thought has occurred to them too. Doubtless on a very regular basis. Punishment enough most would say.
Besides, we don't yet know for certain that Madeleine isn't having a whale of a time somewhere with doting parents pandering to her every whim.
We can always hope so anyway.
Endlessly droning on about parental shortcomings seems to be a sign of insecurity.

[DodgyAgent]

Dodgy, their behaviour is inexcusable.

They are complicit through their neglect.

Whichever way you wish to dress this up or soften it by ridiculing me is up to you but you can't change the fact that due to their behaviour something has happened to Madeleine.

What then if they had not gone on holiday in the first place? By going on holiday they were complicit in the childs abduction. In fact they were complicit by having children in the first place.

[Batcher]

What then if they had not gone on holiday in the first place? By going on holiday they were complicit in the childs abduction. In fact they were complicit by having children in the first place.

You're just being silly now. Well, sillier than normal.

[NotAllThere]

Everyone is different.

I'm not.

[DodgyAgent]

You're just being silly now. Well, sillier than normal.

I am not being silly. I am trying to establish what levels of human behaviour in the looking after of their kids is acceptable and what is not. Where would be the fine line between a parent being deserving of the cause of the childs abduction (clearly the abductor is not to blamed). You and Churhill clearly have lines but cannot explain where they are.

My theory of course is that you both have issues about your own parenting and wish to hide them behind the misery that the Mcanns have suffered.

[jemb]

The press are entitled to come knocking on your door if they want to ask you something, I think.Is facing up to what you've done "being driven to take your life"?

They can ask - not sure that sticking a camera in her face is really that fair. The internet allows a large level of anonymity - which is good/bad depending on your point of view. Her points were nothing worse than anything on this thread - yet she was outed and demonised by Sky.

So, humiliated, her character damaged and terrified by calls for tougher police action by Gerry McCann, she took her life.

Who knows, perhaps she was a bit p1ssed and let fly at parents she saw as a bit lax in their child care arrangements? but having Sky arrive at your house and stick a camera in your face was a bit cr@p.

The McCanns, gotta feel sorry for them - they lost their kid and now this. Jeez.

[Churchill]

I am not being silly. I am trying to establish what levels of human behaviour in the looking after of their kids is acceptable and what is not. Where would be the fine line between a parent being deserving of the cause of the childs abduction (clearly the abductor is not to blamed). You and Churhill clearly have lines but cannot explain where they are.

My theory of course is that you both have issues about your own parenting and wish to hide them behind the misery that the Mcanns have suffered.

I've repeatedly told you where the line is. Don't leave your young children unattended!

It's not exactly rocket science and your "what if" line of questioning is irrelevant.

[DodgyAgent]

I've repeatedly told you where the line is. Don't leave your young children unattended!

It's not exactly rocket science and your "what if" line of questioning is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant because funnily enough we all leave children unsupervised at times unless you are still sleeping with yours and have sight of it 24 hours a day. Nor have you explained why you think that the Mcanns deserve this to have happened to them and nor have you explained why is it necessary to pour criticism on them.

In actual fact you are not explaining anything at all. You have a "position" (you should not leave children unattended - with who? you, your wife, child minder dodgy uncle) which is deliberately vague and also meaningless.

[Churchill]

PM: To Kate McCaan

It is not irrelevant because funnily we all leave children unsupervised at times unless you are still sleeping with yours and have sight of then 24 hours a day. Nor have you explained why you think that the Mcanns deserve this to have happened to them and nor have you explained why is it necessary to pour criticism on them.

Where have I said that they deserved this to happen?

In fact you will find that I have said that no one deserves this to happen to them.

[DodgyAgent]

Where have I said that they deserved this to happen?

By implication.

You have focussed on them leaving their children alone when it is obvious to them that they should not have done it (they don't need you trolling the internet telling them and everyone else do they?). You have been utterly nasty in your criticism of them - do they need it?

It is like saying that a girl who has been raped "should not have dressed provocatively" . The implication would be that it was her own fault. It is exactly the same as the attitude of the social services and police in Rotherham towards the child abuse victims.

The reason you do is that deep down (well not that deep) is that you are trying to deal with the tragedy of the Mcann family by distancing yourself from them (affluent white middle class). It is either that or you have some issues of your own that look look better in the light of the evil that is the Mcann family.