[ubermik]

@pats wrote:

@bat wrote:

@fastcars wrote:

@bat wrote:

@fastcars wrote:

@bat wrote:

@fastcars wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

@fastcars wrote:

Im suprised Ubermick and Batty havent called the police about their feelings on this case. The Mcanns would have been hung drawn and quartered weeks ago if they had their way.

LOL, assuming guilt based on nothing but “feelings” is as moronically retarded as doing the same of innocence based on an equal vaccum of knowledge Fasty

So as much as you might think it would be wise to not interview them purely on “feelings” I niether thing it would be wise nor sane to punish them based on an equally lacking justification, I just dont think empathy,l sympathy and other eroneous nonsense should be cause to NOT investigate them as you would do anyone else, if they didnt do it then that would be proven, if they did, then they wouldnt really have cause to complain

What ever happened to innocent before proven quilty? You have, in your own pomous manner, slated this family from the word go with no thought to the fact that they might be completely and utterly innocent. I echo what Shazza says…. I hope the outcome of all this is the complete opposite from any of your wild assumptions and you are made to eat your (very) long and idiotic posts. Like pebbles says…. give the family a break… they have just lost a child!

Yes fasty, they have lost a child, and whose fault is that eh? It,s because of their negligence that all this bloody fiasco happened in the first place. Lets suppose for a minute, that whilst they were sitting in the bar, enjoying their cosy meal and a few drinks and a laugh with their friends, that one of the twins woke up crying for mum or dad. Tried the patio doors and, finding them open, wandered out, and across the road looking for mum and dad. A car came along and knocked them over. Would you have quite so much sympathy then? Whose fault would it be then eh? There,s for leaving 3 kids under the age of 4 in an unlocked apartment in the first place.

So which of you gossip mongers is correct then because between you you cant seem to decide if it was the front door that was left open or the patio doors.
But lets take Battys version of events that it was the patio doors as gospel.
Now looking at the photo that you yourself have posted Batty I would suggest that the patio doors lead out onto a balcony that is ringed by quite a large wall. The only possible people that may have access to this balcony “might” be the appartment adjacent but as far as I can see that would be it. There is certainly no way such a young child could escape which maybe explains why the family found it uneccessary to lock it. There is certainly no road anywhere in the vicinity as the appartment is at least two or three levels up so your exaggerated theory is exactly that. Exaggerated!

Fasty the patio doors were left unlocked so the parents could get in and out easly, thats a fact. You have completly missed the point I was trying to make, which was, IF, one of the kids had woken up and wandered out of the apartment, because of the doors being unlocked, and then got run over, would you be so quick to defend the negligent McCanns then? And yes there is a road in the vicinity, the bloody McCanns had to cross it to get to their cosy little resturant didnt they. :roll:

Did they really have to cross a road?? Because your picture suggests that the only thing between this restaurant and their appartment is a tiny hotel swimming pool. And before u suggest that a pool is just as dangerous I would find it very hard to belive that a three year old child could reach a hotel door handle… wandle down the coridoor… doubtless coming across more difficult door handles along the way. Then toddle down 3 flights of steps before eventually finding their way out to the outdoor swimming pool. And all this without being noticed by one single hotel occupant :roll:

FFS give me bloody strength. Do I have to write this in punjabi before you get my point?
When I said about the kids getting out of the apartment that was just an example I was trying but failing dismally to show. IF, note, IF, they had got out and done what I suggested and ended up getting run over, would you have been so quick to defend the useless McCanns then? Or would you have thought, like the vast majority of us would, that they were grossly negligent in leaving the doors, unlocked in the first place. Geddit now? jeez, I,m worn out now. :roll: ](*,)

you would be surprised what 3 yr olds can do fasty if they are determined enough.

:lol:

[ubermik]

@cas wrote:

@forumhostpb wrote:

…. and the parents of these abusive little thugs???? Do they have a responsibility for the fruits of their fornication???

Of course they’re responsible,,,,,what do we do though,,,,,,shoot them?

Boot camps seem the best option and work wonders with wayward kids in the US where they are being used, incrementally increasing the time spent their until eventually someone gets sentenced to national service in the actual army would, I reckon not only be a deterrent but would also give these kids the concept of fear, punishment, discipline and routine. Concepts many of their parents didnt have in their childhood and therefore arent capable of instilling into their own little byproducts of drunken fumbles up dark alleys after too much drinking and/or ganja

If the parents arent going to discipline and control their kids then we have an armed forces that specialises in doing that sort of thing, lets use them

And while were at it make the parents go through the exact same thing as THEIR punishment for half assed apathetic parenting

[ubermik]

Fasty, I think you will find on examination I have never, not even once specified which door was left unlocked as I cant remember which one the Mcanns said they had left unlocked so that passers by could check on THEIR kids

Token, their IRresponsible actions ARE responsible for the opportunity for their child to be snatched unnoticed

So they are responsible for causing the abduction to have taken place whether they are invoilved more deeply than that or not

Thats easier to see with the car accident analogy really, suppose that had happened instead? Its not the childs fault is it? And it certainly wouldnt be the motorists fault if a 3 year old walked out from between parked cars

So that ONLY leaves the parents to blame for the scenario, just because the same actions resulted in a different method of her death doesnt alter their culpability for what they CHOSE to do with regards the safety of their children

There HAS to be some punishment for what is without doubt gross negligence to send out a message to parents that this kind of piss poor self absorbed parenting WONT be tolerated otherwise a lack of such a punishment will be contributary to more parents doing the same and taking their chances with their kids wellbeing if the message thats sent out instead is that you can be a miserable self absorbed excuse for a parent and you actually get sympathy for it rather than being made to accept your responsibility for what happens as a result

[ubermik]

Actually, just to make it so clear it cant be missed

Lets say there are 6 people in an office half are female just to avoid the kneejerk sex issue and none have kids

ALL of them when initially employed CAN work late, weekends and away from home IF needed so all are equally of value as they offer equal flexibility as an employee

Then ONE woman gets pregnant, for the next 6 months she would be at home doing 0% work for 100% pay the other 5 staff (three male, two female) will each be doing 120% for only 100% of the pay because of a child THEY didnt decide to have, just how exactly is that “equal” to the non breeders?

Then, she will on average be unable to work late, weekends or away in most cases and will have on average a much higher percentage of time off all of which will have to again be shared out between the other 5 people in that office all for no extra pay for them whatsoever

So however its dressed up one persons unilateral choice to have a chold equates to several other people doing more work with no pay increase to reflect that extra work load which isnt under any actual meaning of the word “equal”

Actual equality would reward people based on their worth to the employer, any shortfall due to breeding would then be met by the government and not the employer

The same applies to progression, the higher someone progresses in an organisation and the more specialised their task the less likely any sensible employer would be to hire a woman as you cant really afford someone to be off for nine months 1 year into a 2 year project in a key skills role on that project

Now, lets suppose women didnt choose to pretty much dominate the arena of child rearing, lets suppose career women didnt choose to still fight for the kids even when their ex was the main carer for them, lets suppose women relinquished some of the responsibility for kids to their partners

Then you wouldnt have such a clear division of value to an employer, because then men would be just as likely to present less value over time because they would be just as likely to be restricted by their parental responsibilities (the Mcanns would obviously not be bound by that lol)

But you still have the inconvenience and financial impact of the pregnancy itself which would mean that even in a world of equal parenting opportunity and equal custody women would never ever be totally “equal” in terms of potential worth to an employer as a man unless they are sterile and dont want any kids but even IF that is the case with a woman its considered sexist to ask if its the case so they have to be treated as a potential breeder has to be in order to have ACTUAL fairness in a pay structure

[ubermik]

@American Woman wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

Who said I’m easy? :o :o :o :oops: :oops: :oops:

Well that’s what I read on the Ladies Room wall :roll:

Of course you men are entitled to your own opinion. That being said I think you are very wrong. It’s up to both parents to raise children. Maybe if a mother can’t be there for something, then the father should step up. There are also a lot of single mothers out there taking care of their children. Do you honestly believe that she should not get paid equally for taking care of her children as a man who takes care of his? Personally, I was raised by a single mother who had to work twice as hard because to make ends meet. If she were a man, perhaps she could had a one job and be home at regular hours.
I have chosen to stay home and raise my kids. When they are in school, I will return to the workforce. It is possible to have both a career and be a good mother. If I ever have girls one day, I’m not going to tell them ‘your not worth financially as much as a boy’. I would never lie and tell her ‘stay home and have babies’. Every person deserves to follow the path that’s right for them, regardless of gender.

Well theres the issue you see, I wouldnt say someone deserves “less” exactly, but simply that its unfair for an employee to subsidise someones breeding habits as they dont benefit from it

Similarly, the people working with that “breeder” who will and do in many cases have to pick up the slack between them do more work but get the same pay as a result, so how is THAT fair irrespective of the other peoples gender?

Actual equality in terms of pay is ONLY pertinent to the amount of time at work and in many professions the flexibility someone can offer if needed, and flexibility whilst a quite valuable commodity isnt something the majority of single mums have do they?

But youre right, its the individual who chooses a path in life, so why shold an employer subsidise it over and above that individuals worth? And why should their colleagues have to pick up the slack but not be rewarded for being there more and being more flexible and available?

The people who allegedly benefit from a child in the long term is the government NOT the employer, so any shortfall in wages should be met by them if employers were allowed to pay each individual based on their individual worth rather than having to pay less valiable employees the same as more valuable ones because of some misguided “equality” concept?

Its also not strictly speaking a gender issue as many women who dont want to or cant breed WILL be penalised as a result of the ones who can and do but expect to be treated “equally” even tho their contribution to the company wont be anything like equal

[ubermik]

For once I agree with your drivel…erm drivel lol

Raising kids well AND building a career are both fulltime jobs, to try and do both means one or both will be poorly done but to accomodate that the standard of parenting has religiously lowered to make “adequate” parenting far more accessible

Even in the employment arena “equality” is a misnomer, women like it or not just dont present the same financial worth as men in many positions and therefore dont deserve and shouldnt be paid the same wages for the same job title and the woman who are worth the same salary cant be ascertained because it would be considered sexist (when infact its “realist”) to ask the questions that need to be asked

Infact when actual equality is put forward as a suggestion in the work arena, a method of payment that wouldnt distinguish between genders but purely on worth to the company women are the first people to complain and call it sexist lol, go figure?

[ubermik]

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

i just wish people would give the family a break, theyve lost a kid fgs! :evil:

personally, i still think the neighbour might have something to do with it. Hes been taken in for questioning a few times now. No smoke without fire. Makes sense really because it sounds like its someone whos been watching the family.

They left their 3 year old daughter alone in a foriegn country, because of which she is missing perhaps dead, they dont deserve any breaks

[ubermik]

@fastcars wrote:

Im suprised Ubermick and Batty havent called the police about their feelings on this case. The Mcanns would have been hung drawn and quartered weeks ago if they had their way.

LOL, assuming guilt based on nothing but “feelings” is as moronically retarded as doing the same of innocence based on an equal vaccum of knowledge Fasty

So as much as you might think it would be wise to not interview them purely on “feelings” I niether thing it would be wise nor sane to punish them based on an equally lacking justification, I just dont think empathy,l sympathy and other eroneous nonsense should be cause to NOT investigate them as you would do anyone else, if they didnt do it then that would be proven, if they did, then they wouldnt really have cause to complain

[ubermik]

I like twisting it tho :wink:

[ubermik]

@Bad Manners wrote:

[
So what? . The worst case scenario is that the little girl’s dead. If she is dead she could be buried. Therefore its hardly baffling that the body hasnt been found yet is it?
She could still be alive though even though no trace of her has been found. How about that little girl from Poland or somewhere that recently was found. She was missing for 7 years or something. How does that fit into your theory PB.
PB you keep going on about these statistics. 90 percent of cases are found to be someone connected to the family or whatever. It still leaves 10 percent of cases where that isnt the case. Chelsea win most of their games, doesnt mean they win them all. These people cant be put under suspicion because of some statistic.

“These people cant be put under suspicion because of some statistic”

Why not?

If they only have a 1 in 10 chance of being innocent then they are 9 times more likely to be guilty so common sense alone would suggest you start by playing the odds and PROVE theyre innocent rather than just tip toe around them and hope they are

If you HAD to cross a lava pit and only had a choice of two bridges to do so, one of which collapsed 90% of the time it was used and one that only collapsed 10% of the time with each collapse causing the death of those crossing are you really expecting people to believe you would go with the one that collapsed 9 times as many times as the other lol?

Course not, you’d start with the one that presented the best odds of success (well a sane person would)

So I dont see how a 1 in 10 chance of innocence is reason to NOT see them as possible suspects, thats not a very “real world” application of probability

[Author]

Posts