egafd.com

David Johnson wrote:


> Do you think that if they had known what was going to happen
> they would have left their children unattended?

I think millions of parents don't leave their children home alone precisely because they think of what the possible consequences of their selfish actions could be.

"I think millions of parents don't leave their children home alone precisely because they think of what the possible consequences of their selfish actions could be."

Jesus, you're not a priest are you? The McCanns made an error of judgement. They have said that no-one could feel more guilty than them for leaving their kids unsupervised. They have gone through hell subsequently.

Give them a break.

Or perhaps you are one of the "guilty until proven innocent" brigade.

D

David Johnson wrote:

>
> Or perhaps you are one of the "guilty until proven innocent"
> brigade.

They are guilty of child neglect. By their own admission as you link proves.

"They are guilty of child neglect. By their own admission as you link proves."

This may or may not be correct. They clearly have not been charged with this in Portugal. Nor have they been charged with any neglect in the UK You may have a better understanding of the Portuguese legal system than those working in the Portuguese legal system. I somehow doubt it.

However, this discussion has clearly moved away from your initial bollocks about so-called "airbrushing" of the fact they left their children largely unattended.

This "airbrushing" smear is clearly nonsense, as a perusal of the thread will show. I repeat, the unattended leaving of the kids was dwelt on extensively during the months immediately after the abduction including the question of whether it was child neglect.

The recent media reports are about what the McCanns dispute in Amaral's book. What they dont dispute is that they left their kids unattended. They have always admitted that and felt guilty about it.

End of conversation.

David Johnson wrote:


> End of conversation.

Love how people say "last comment" and "end of conversation" etc as though that makes them absolutely right and 'the winner!'

"Love how people say "last comment" and "end of conversation" etc as though that makes them absolutely right and 'the winner!'"

Complete guesswork, but wrong, I'm afraid.

You said

"Is anyone allowed to mention they left their kids home alone yet?

Or has the major contributing factor, in any scenario which doesn't involve them doing it, been airbrushed out?"

1. The above is a smear implying that there is some kind of media/legal ban on mentioning the fact that the McCanns left their children unsupervised.
2. I refuted this smear.
3. Nothing in your subsequent responses suggests anything other than you accept that there is no media/legal ban on this. If you do believe that, you made no mention of it.
4. You then changed the subject from people being allowed to mention unsupervised children to "being guilty of child neglect"
5. This may or may not be morally correct. Legally its bollocks given no charges or verdict have been announced in this area.
6. I havent got the time to work through your smears/half truths about the "odious" McCanns. I've been watching the football. Really good game!!! Thats why I finished my part of the conversation.
7. YOu may think that I believe that finishing the conversation from my point of view makes me a "winner" and "absolutely right". I couldnt care less. I put my view and people accept it or not. Thats their prerogative.
8. This really is my last point in this thread with you.

D

David Johnson wrote:

> "Love how people say "last comment" and "end of conversation"
> etc as though that makes them absolutely right and 'the
> winner!'"
>
> Complete guesswork, but wrong, I'm afraid.
>
> You said
>
> "Is anyone allowed to mention they left their kids home alone
> yet?
>
> Or has the major contributing factor, in any scenario which
> doesn't involve them doing it, been airbrushed out?"
>
> 1. The above is a smear implying that there is some kind of
> media/legal ban on mentioning the fact that the McCanns left
> their children unsupervised.
> 2. I refuted this smear.
> 3. Nothing in your subsequent responses suggests anything other
> than you accept that there is no media/legal ban on this. If
> you do believe that, you made no mention of it.
> 4. You then changed the subject from people being allowed to
> mention unsupervised children to "being guilty of child
> neglect"
> 5. This may or may not be morally correct. Legally its bollocks
> given no charges or verdict have been announced in this area.
> 6. I havent got the time to work through your smears/half
> truths about the "odious" McCanns. I've been watching the
> football. Really good game!!! Thats why I finished my part of
> the conversation.
> 7. YOu may think that I believe that finishing the conversation
> from my point of view makes me a "winner" and "absolutely
> right". I couldnt care less. I put my view and people accept
> it or not. Thats their prerogative.
> 8. This really is my last point in this thread with you.
>
> D

1. I posed a question as to why no media (that I'd read/seen) had mentioned the 'home alone' part. You took it upon yourself to see at as smear. (of whom?)

2. I don't see any evidence from the latest round of coverage of a mention of the 'home alone' part.

3. I never thought there was a legal ban, maybe a self imposed one or a max Clifford one, but certainly a noticeable lack of mentioning the 'home alone' bit.

4. After your 'guilty until proven innocent' comment brought guilt and innocence into play.

5. Yep, I have an opinion that people who leave their kids home alone to go out with their mates are guilty of child neglect. I don't need a judge to confirm that for me.

6. Again, I have an opinion on the McCanns. You see that as a smear, perhaps because it doesn't agree with your perception.

7. You know damn well many people use the 'this is my last word' tactic to say "I'm right, you're wrong, so I'm not going to bother arguing with you any more"

8. I doubt it.

Hmm, is David Johnson a Freemason?