You're all going to hate me...

[Euro-commuter]

I think my darkest thoughts are starting to stray to "they are in deep sh*t with someone (owing money or something) and that they have basically sold her...arranged to have her snatched."

These really are my darkest thoughts like - I really hope its not true.

I just dont know what it is...they're always together, holding hands. Why haven't they fought and blamed each other yet? Why isn't it the husbands fault? Any normal couple (especially wife/mother) would have acted like a totally irrational lunatic by now! "It was you who wanted to go for food you evil b*stard - get out of my apartment it's all your fault" etc etc etc

Soemthing just doesn't add up.

Oh my God. But you're right, few couples survive the loss of a child. They're behaving as if something is working, not as if it's all unravelling.

Edit: or are they? I feel terrible for writing that. But something doesn't click. I have no idea what it is.

[sasguru]

How about this simple explanation:

They're doing the best in horrible circumstances to put a brave face on it: by not fighting in public, appearing for the media, seeing the pope etc they're doing their level best to keep the case in the public eye?
Perhaps they are real old-fashioned Brits who don't wear their heart on their sleeve and are using their heads before their hearts?

[Buffoon]

I think el Gordo eat her.

[DodgyAgent]

...but I cant hold my tongue on this any more.

I think there's something very very very strange about this whole Madeline thing.

I'll be the first to admit that I dont have kids, so I dont know what the parents are feeling, but I just think the whole thing has stunk since the get go.

They put their other 2 kids in a creche every day? That whole "Hello" photo spread a couple of weeks ago? Jetting off to see the pope and leaving their other kids behind?

Surely if they've just lost one kid, they wouldn't want their other kids out of their sights for a second?! Why both go and see the pope? why put the kids in a creche every day, in the custody of strangers, when they're both in their apartment every day?
Could any of you lot who have kids pull those grins a fortnight after one of your own kids disappearred like we saw in those photos?

I've just found the whole thing very wierd since day 1.

I'm not accusing the parents of being involved, but it wouldn't shock me if that's what came out like.

I'm not being a troll here either, I genuinely mean this. Cant keep it in any longer having just watched them say bye to their twins to get on their jet and leave the country, like they were saying goodbye to pop to the shops.

Very wierd.

What is interesting is that the two people on here who have subscribed to this view have no children of their own, and the one that partly subscribes to it only has stepchildren.

I am not quite sure how your mind works or how you come to the conclusion that there is a hidden agenda here, but it clearly suits you to do so. The question I ask you therefore is how should the parents be expected to behave under these circumstances? The face of the mother in the early days alone is a face that is an expression that is not put on by acting.

If you really bother to think about this objectively you would recognise that these parents have brought to bear everything they can onto finding their child. they have managed to remain on the TV headlines for nearly a month.
They have done almost everything that they could do and will without doubt continue to do so, with great dignity.

Would you have preffered to see a little bit more of "me, me me" about their approach to all this. In my view finding the child has transcended any desire to make themselves into celebrities "whilst they are at it". Is this your probblem then? are they not turning this thing into a circus for you? Do you want another agenda to appear just because the story is a little too straightforward for you.. is it not entertaining enough for you?

As I say, go and have children yourself and then make an opinion otherwise just shut up.

[sasguru]

I think it's an example of "Dianaitis", that sad phenomenon that has meant the demise of the stiff upper lip in exchange for the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[Stan]

I think it's an example of "Dianaitis", that sad phenomenon that has meant the demise of the stiff upper lip in exchange for the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Thats what sickens me.

I also don't think not having children means you can't comment. Parents do unspeakable things to their children - we have no idea who really did what in this case despite what the media sensationalise.

[DodgyAgent]

Thats what sickens me.

I also don't think not having children means you can't comment. Parents do unspeakable things to their children - we have no idea who really did what in this case despite what the media sensationalise.

It is free world stan, but it certainly helps if you are trying to understand the feelings of parents in this case.Having said that, just because I have kids it does not make me right. Sally Ann makes no effort to do this, she simply forms an opinion that is based as SAS says on denial mixed with guilt. It is her way of dealing with this.

[MarillionFan]

I have to agree. I am finding it quite strange as well. Said so a few weeks ago.

As it happens I am going to Portugal, five miles away from this resort with my family on Thursday.

I can understand leaving them for an across the road drop, but it would have to be in sight. The distance between where they left is incredible.

I have also left my daughter in a room on her own in a hotel while we go downstairs. We had a full baby monitor working and the hotel listening service. Even that made us nervous.

For no-one to see a thing, no cctv etc seems odd, and doesn't the old man seem extremely calm.

[Stan]

As I say, go and have children yourself and then make an opinion otherwise just shut up.

It is free world stan,

Glad we cleared that one up

[Euro-commuter]

What is interesting is that the two people on here who have subscribed to this view have no children of their own, and the one that partly subscribes to it only has stepchildren.
...
As I say, go and have children yourself and then make an opinion otherwise just shut up.

I'm not sure what you mean here, Dodgy, that I "only" have stepchildren. That does mean that I have faced choices between my gratification and the children's needs. And as I said, I have always found it a no-brainer to give up any social life that I might have imagined having, rather than be cavalier with the children's supervision; even though they were "only" my wife's children, not mine in your way of thinking apparently.

Their genes weren't mine, but responsibility for their safety was. I tried to make the point here that I would have thought the McCanns would be more concerned than me, not less. Maybe not.

Yes, I have seen photos of Mrs McCann wandering around clutching a pink toy, and no, I can't get them out of my head. Does that really mean that I must shut up completely?