Missing Madeleine
Come join us...there's more inside you cannot see as a guest!

Live dangerously, it's safer

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Live dangerously, it's safer

Post  Guest on Sat 2 Aug - 5:47

From The Times
Live dangerously, it's safer

(...)
“Let's just suppose, in some sick parallel universe, that you wanted your children to be abducted. Let's imagine that you'd had enough of them and decided that your cunning plan was to chuck them out of the house then sit back and wait for some passing kid-snatcher to run off with them. How long do you think you'd have to wait? Warwick Cairns will tell you. It would take 200,000 years, he says. And then you'd get them back within 24 hours. If you wanted them to be taken for longer you'd need to hang about for around 600,000 years. Because in any one year the average child stands a 0.0005 per cent chance of being abducted by a stranger and a 0.00016 chance of not being recovered alive within 24 hours.”
(....)
“we increasingly want to lock our children indoors where there are actually more hazards, not only from relatives (the majority of child killers are in the family), but from other dangers. Three children a day, for instance, are injured in the home from burns or smoke inhalation, and one dies every ten days. “So, they go out and very rarely indeed, one child of the 12 million [in this country] gets abducted,” he says. “Or they stay in where one child gets burnt to death every ten days.”
(...)

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4418620.ece

Posted by Paulo Reis
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Live dangerously, it's safer

Post  Guest on Sat 2 Aug - 11:03

Very interesting piece. Thanks for that.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Live dangerously, it's safer

Post  Susan on Sat 2 Aug - 11:09

Jacqui67 wrote:From The Times
Live dangerously, it's safer

(...)
“Let's just suppose, in some sick parallel universe, that you wanted your children to be abducted. Let's imagine that you'd had enough of them and decided that your cunning plan was to chuck them out of the house then sit back and wait for some passing kid-snatcher to run off with them. How long do you think you'd have to wait? Warwick Cairns will tell you. It would take 200,000 years, he says. And then you'd get them back within 24 hours. If you wanted them to be taken for longer you'd need to hang about for around 600,000 years. Because in any one year the average child stands a 0.0005 per cent chance of being abducted by a stranger and a 0.00016 chance of not being recovered alive within 24 hours.”
(....)
“we increasingly want to lock our children indoors where there are actually more hazards, not only from relatives (the majority of child killers are in the family), but from other dangers. Three children a day, for instance, are injured in the home from burns or smoke inhalation, and one dies every ten days. “So, they go out and very rarely indeed, one child of the 12 million [in this country] gets abducted,” he says. “Or they stay in where one child gets burnt to death every ten days.”
(...)

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4418620.ece

Posted by Paulo Reis


This is why i do not believe that Maddie walked out herself and someone came alone and took her.....
avatar
Susan
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 11477
Age : 57
Location : Spain. The place where children are welcome in tapas bars
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2008-07-21

http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Live dangerously, it's safer

Post  Guest on Sat 2 Aug - 11:11

Ambersuz wrote:
Jacqui67 wrote:From The Times
Live dangerously, it's safer

(...)
“Let's just suppose, in some sick parallel universe, that you wanted your children to be abducted. Let's imagine that you'd had enough of them and decided that your cunning plan was to chuck them out of the house then sit back and wait for some passing kid-snatcher to run off with them. How long do you think you'd have to wait? Warwick Cairns will tell you. It would take 200,000 years, he says. And then you'd get them back within 24 hours. If you wanted them to be taken for longer you'd need to hang about for around 600,000 years. Because in any one year the average child stands a 0.0005 per cent chance of being abducted by a stranger and a 0.00016 chance of not being recovered alive within 24 hours.”
(....)
“we increasingly want to lock our children indoors where there are actually more hazards, not only from relatives (the majority of child killers are in the family), but from other dangers. Three children a day, for instance, are injured in the home from burns or smoke inhalation, and one dies every ten days. “So, they go out and very rarely indeed, one child of the 12 million [in this country] gets abducted,” he says. “Or they stay in where one child gets burnt to death every ten days.”
(...)

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4418620.ece

Posted by Paulo Reis


This is why i do not believe that Maddie walked out herself and someone came alone and took her.....

Funny thing is, Kate was adament that she'd not wandered - said it was impossible. She knew why ...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Live dangerously, it's safer

Post  Susan on Sat 2 Aug - 11:36

Of course she knew...especially now that we are hearing it officially in the book by a detective in charge of the case that Maddie did die that night
avatar
Susan
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 11477
Age : 57
Location : Spain. The place where children are welcome in tapas bars
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2008-07-21

http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Live dangerously, it's safer

Post  Guest on Sat 2 Aug - 11:49

Ambersuz wrote:Of course she knew...especially now that we are hearing it officially in the book by a detective in charge of the case that Maddie did die that night

Just posted this in Children's thread. Editing it here but I thought I raised a couple of good points

Re posed 'happy' photos - Would anyone with a heart be able to specifically pose for press pictures when this was supposed to be about raising Madeleine's profile???? Why would we want to see 'posed' pictures full of smiles of the McCanns and their twins? Did they not for a second wonder if Madeleine might have seen the pictures? The picture might have been shown to Madeleine and used as part of brain washing - see look, your mum, dad, brother and sister are fine without you and have forgotton you already??? If there was such a person as an abductor ...

The thing about all this that get's to me is that Kate admitted that she sleeps OK and did so within a week of Madeleine going missing. I only have to imagine for a second, as many of us do, that our child is missing, without knowing what has happened and the thought is so awful, you have to stop it immediately. I know that I would have to have some serious sleeping drugs to make me even contemplate putting my head down. I wouldn't rest. In that Women's Hour interview that Kate did, she didn't say she took any medication to help her sleep or anything like that. Wierd. What would have been wrong about saying that you needed something to help you sleep? Unless ... you did have sleeping medication with you at the time your daughter went missing and it was already being questioned in certain quarters whether the children were getting a little help to sleep with the use of some sort of sleeping drug??

Seems they may be afraid to mention the words sleeping and sedation??? Except when much, much later Gerry mentions the possibility casually!!!!
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Live dangerously, it's safer

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum