• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Madeline McCann...

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    I think concensus is that Medellin is city in Columbia.

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by Swati View Post
      I think concensus is that Medellin is city in Columbia.
      The kidnap/murder capital of the world, isn't it?

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by Churchill View Post
        If the McCanns hadn't left their children unsupervised the kid wouldn't have dissapeared. Therefore they(the McCanns) are responsible.
        At what level does a child become unsupervised? Out of the room, just out of the house, at the bottom of the garden, in the bar next to the bottom of the garden?

        With your logic could say that every child that gets abducted was unsupervised becasue there was not a parent there at the time directly looking at the child to notice and to stop the abduction. Is that the case? Every child abduction can be blamed on the parents?

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by minestrone View Post
          At what level does a child become unsupervised? Out of the room, just out of the house, at the bottom of the garden, in the bar next to the bottom of the garden?

          With your logic could say that every child that gets abducted was unsupervised becasue there was not a parent there at the time directly looking at the child to notice and to stop the abduction. Is that the case? Every child abduction can be blamed on the parents?
          You'd risk losing your child just so that you could go for a beer and Paella?

          Your decision, your risk, ultimately your responsibility.

          Btw, I prefer your posts after you've got pissed at the pub.

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by Churchill View Post
            You'd risk losing your child just so that you could go for a beer and Paella?

            Your decision, your risk, ultimately your responsibility.

            Btw, I prefer your posts after you've got pissed at the pub.
            Well, if you believe the British police the family was being stalked for several days leadin up to the abduction. If that was the case then the child would have eventually been taken.

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by minestrone View Post
              . Is that the case? Every child abduction can be blamed on the parents?
              To take it to the extreme, yes. But, I would say it's all about balancing risk.

              A child abducted from you back garden (assuming you don't live on a 50hectare country estate) could probably have been said to have been supervised.

              If you are in a bar and checking on your kid ever 20 mins or so then you are not supervising the child - you are giving a potential abductor notice that the next time you leave the building he's got 20 minutes to get away with your kid.
              ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by Churchill View Post
                Btw, I prefer your posts after you've got pissed at the pub.

                Cheers, i'm going for a pint now actually.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Seems like a reasonable list of questions some of which one might refuse to answer, however refusing them all is suspicious at the very least.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by AtW View Post
                    Seems like a reasonable list of questions some of which one might refuse to answer, however refusing them all is suspicious at the very least.
                    Agreed but if the people asking the questions have you fingered for the crime already you could answer 39 correctly, mess up the 40th and they would have you stripped naked and fumbling for soap in a foreign jail faster than you can blink.

                    I would hazard a guess but I think keeping quiet in the face of accusing questions is only fair in the circumstances.
                    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                      Agreed but if the people asking the questions have you fingered for the crime already you could answer 39 correctly, mess up the 40th and they would have you stripped naked and fumbling for soap in a foreign jail faster than you can blink.

                      I would hazard a guess but I think keeping quiet in the face of accusing questions is only fair in the circumstances.
                      Bollocks, they're guilty as sin. I just can't prove it - but then again I haven't tried.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X