LS Media - Published On: Mon, Jul 2nd, No, I shan’t look for Maddie in Tallinn.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Oh Kathybelle I did try to protect you from TT (timewasters and trolls) by telling you how to block their ramblings!

Allow me to post this funny clip again about Internet trolls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg

Their individual techniques may be slightly different but the end result is the same - you end up going and wanting to kick every inanimate object in sight.

I no longer reply directly to the TT brigade (you can see from my avatar that I like to keep all the pies for myself) but they can be great entertainment value.

Good on the writer of the article.

Good morning NBY

As soon as you told me how to block posters, I blocked snowflake and her sidekick straight away. However and I know I was wrong, I couldn't resist pressing the display snowdrop's comment, which I replied to. Although I don't regret saying what I said to her in my post. I won't be looking at snowflakes posts anymore and that goes for the posts of her side kick.

By the way, I saved the funny You Tube video, when you first put the link on here the other day.

Yes, that is the problem - you see the responses from other people and you can't resist looking to see what was said by the member of the TT brigade!

snowflake wrote:

margaret wrote:

snowflake wrote:

So far he seems to believe in stranger abduction, cant remember the whole quote.

Yes after millions of £s of taxpayers money and months reviewing the files redwood thinks Maddie is either 'alive or dead'.

Mind you he was only 25% through the review so he obviously hasn't got to Eddie and Keela yet.

Oh I'm sure he has read/seen all about eddie and keela.
They've been on you tubefor years.

Why would a leading officer be looking on youtube when he'd have the orginal copies in the files he's reviewing?



Thought your neices husband could have told you how reviews operate?

snowflake wrote:

cherry1 wrote:snowflake I've no reason to hang my head in shame
You should for your post recently where you said those two little children should be taken from their parents.
shame on you.


Leaving small children alone is neglect, neglect is child abuse which any child protection agency will tell you.

To forcibly take two little children from a home where there is no sign of neglect is wrong..............and to wish that on those two little childrenis nasty

Hello Snowflake,



CARTAS ROGATORIAS UK (FILE 3)
1 to 3—Witness Statement of Philip Hussey (McCann family doctor) 2008.05.15

I never had any doubts about the state of mental health of Kate and Gerry and I never prescribed them sedatives or any medication that could alter the psychological state of Kate or Gerry.

Also, I never had doubts regarding the physical or psychological well-being of the children. Madeleine was seen by the duty doctor when born and by our nurses during the routine vaccinations. If there had been cause for concern in any of the children, it would have been brought to my attention, and this did not happen.

For those not familiar with child protection policies, neglect is one of the factors of
child abuse. The Mccanns have admitted they left their three young children alone which
is neglect.

to try and excuse neglect of children is abhorrent and those doing it need to be ashamed
of themselves.

It is totally irrelevant what the doctor says, the Mccanns have Admitted leaving their young
children alone - that is Neglect!

The lengths some posters will go to in order to try and excuse the mccanns neglect
never ceases to amaze me. Madeleine deserves better!

cherry1 wrote:The lengths some posters will go to in order to try and excuse the mccanns neglect
never ceases to amaze me. Madeleine deserves better!

I know what you mean

cherry1 wrote:For those not familiar with child protection policies, neglect is one of the factors of
child abuse. The Mccanns have admitted they left their three young children alone which
is neglect.

to try and excuse neglect of children is abhorrent and those doing it need to be ashamed
of themselves.

It is totally irrelevant what the doctor says, the Mccanns have Admitted leaving their young
children alone - that is Neglect!

The doctor who made that statement does not appear to have ever seen Madeleine. She was seen by the duty doctor when she was born and by nurses for vaccinations, but not by that doctor.

Thats correct Anna and the post that was posted up earlier is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Speaking in general terms we also know from Victoria Climbie case, Baby P case and other cases that abuse of children is not always picked up either by GP surgeries, health visitors, social workers, etc., Nobody can know what goes on inside someone's house 24 hours a day, and as in the above cases we have seen how the professionals put the needs and feelings of the parents before the needs and feelings and safety and protection of the child!

What we have seen here is a blatant attempt yet again to excuse the Mccanns behaviour, and some people who have done that really should make themselves aware of child protection policies because they are showing themselves up by making totally irrelevant posts.

The group as a whole decided for selfish reasons to leave ALL the children alone on that holiday and its something that I will never understand. It was an absolute disgrace and I will never accept any excuses whatsoever for them doing this. Never.

Do I believe that the entire group should have all their children removed and placed up for adoption with strangers for example, for leaving their children on holiday and those poor children subsequently faced with this heartbreaking, long lasting trauma of being removed from their parents ?

Not at all.

My opinion is that, yes it was neglectful to leave the children on that fateful holiday. However, imo it was, as far as we all know, a one-off situation of leaving them alone on that holiday and as far as we know they had never done anything like this previously - not that we can prove anyway. I doubt Social Services would remove children who come from an apparently otherwise caring home because the parents left them alone on a one-off holiday. There would, I think, have to be other reasons alongside that to recommend removal of the children i.e. children left dirty for long periods, children witnessing physical or verbal abuse by parents, not sufficient food in the house, chaotic and filthy home conditions, parents using drugs or being alcoholic. Now I know we have touched on whether any of the tapas friends and the McCanns may have used recreational drugs and I know we have touched on the amount of alcohol they may or may not have consumed on the holiday and particulary the night in question, but none of it can be proved.

Leaving children alone when everything else in their lives is regarded as caring, leaving them in a one-off scenario on holiday, is neglect of course but not sufficient neglect to warrant their removal as far as I am inclined to think.

I am inclined to think the McCanns were missing several spanners in their toolbox brains when they made the decision to leave their children and I am inclined to think the McCanns were walking a tightrope when they knew the children had been crying the night previous but still decided to leave them alone. However, for the reasons stated above, this does not, to my mind, warrant the childrens complete removal from the parents; it may have led to a hefty slap on the wrist from Social Services, a written warning of some sort, there may have been monitoring of the McCanns by Social Services for a while - we know they were paid a visit by Social Services but we do not know the outcome of that visit.

The bigger question for me though is how much was covered up. It is the covering up that has led to this mystery. They cover up to hide something very sinister because once the something sinister is proven, that would lead to the removal of the twins (and Madeline if she is still alive). That is what the McCanns are so scared of, the turning upside down of their lives to the extent that they lose absolutely everything. As things stand at present, their lives are upside down to a certain degree but it could get a whole lot worse if the something sinister is proven.

Fern I think you have missed the point entirely!

What was being said by some posters was that due to the mccanns NEGLECT which was ADMITTED cos they ADMITTED leaving the children, there were real concerns about the safety of the twins. That has to be a very real concern based on the fact that the Mccanns neglected ALL their children and in the course of that Neglect, one is still missing! I would have thought that anyone who has a genuine concern for the welfare of children would share the same concern that there is a very real concern about the safety of the twins based on what has happened in PDL.

To then post up some totally irrelevant statement from a doctor could be seen to be making excuses
for the Mccanns because they have already admitted neglect so it doesnt matter if 20 doctors came forward and made statements saying they had no cause of concern about the family, it wouldnt matter, it would be irrelevant.

Any parents who leave young toddlers alone in the situation that the Mccanns said they did, should most certainly be being closely monitored by the authorities because the parents have shown that they will put themselves before the protection of their children, therefore their twins ARE potentially at risk.

cherry1 wrote:Fern I think you have missed the point entirely!

Just how many times do I have to spell it out to you Cherry ?

Now please leave me alone and stop trying to instigate an argument.

Im not instigating anything, I have a right to comment on any post which I feel is missing
the point just as I have on some of snowflakes posts, and I have done so as politely as I can.

I also have a right to comment when I feel a poster is making excuses for the Mccanns as we have seen from yourself and snowflake over the last two days. That is my right as a poster.

snowflake when you are quoting posters could you please do so correctly, some of the way
you have used the quotes is misleading, particularly one post you have atrributed to myself
which was said by another poster. Many thanks.

Neglect equals abduction. No neglect makes
abduction highly unlikely.
Who promoted neglectful behaviours?
The Mccanns and their tapas chums.
I believe that neglect was manufactured in
order to placate and convince authorities.
IMO, two professional doctors/parents who
are well aware of the risks, who can afford
the child minding services as available did
NOT with intent leave their offspring in a
place without proper supervision.
Sorry folks, but to accept their story that
they abandoned their children every night
is inadventantly supporting their abduction
excuse.

cherry1 wrote:Im not instigating anything, I have a right to comment on any post which I feel is missing
the point just as I have on some of snowflakes posts, and I have done so as politely as I can.

I also have a right to comment when I feel a poster is making excuses for the Mccanns as we have seen from yourself and snowflake over the last two days. That is my right as a poster.

You know full well that any 'discussion' you attempt to engage in with me always results in YOU throwing an almighty tantrum with claims of being bullied so why bother starting it in the first place ?

Admin don't need this type of disruption, its boring for other posters and in all honesty Cherry, I really cannot understand why you insist on continually taunting me. It really does appear as if you thrive on being a drama queen and causing trouble with those you don't quite agree with.

There are many here that I don't agree with however I do accept that I may be wrong. Yes I can be inquisitive at times however I like to understand how certain people have formed such conclusions. Your conclusions from what I've read of them just don't interest me in the slightest Cherry and this is why I don't bother instigating a discussion with you.

This is a good forum with many interesting topics being discussed therefore surely you can at least find someone else to debate with instead of me.

Fern posters know me and posters know you, many are aware of your conduct towards me over many many years, and nobody is taken in by your fakeness just as fake as your apology years ago for causing me over a year of distress (after my mum had died!!!!!!), and it hasnt ended.

I am trying to have sensible debate if you cant and you keep personally attacking me again as you have done today then I suggest you get off the forum.

Let that be an end to yet another of your personal attacks against me.

We are discussing the Mccann case!!

marxman wrote:Neglect equals abduction. No neglect makes
abduction highly unlikely.
Who promoted neglectful behaviours?
The Mccanns and their tapas chums.
I believe that neglect was manufactured in
order to placate and convince authorities.
IMO, two professional doctors/parents who
are well aware of the risks, who can afford
the child minding services as available did
NOT with intent leave their offspring in a
place without proper supervision.
Sorry folks, but to accept their story that
they abandoned their children every night
is inadventantly supporting their abduction
excuse.

marxman I totally agree, the Mccanns holding their hands up
to neglect is in my opinion a cover for something else, I dont
believe they were left alone and that there could well have been
even more than one person with Madeleine.


It is interesting to see though the posters that excuse the neglect which the parents
admitted to.

LJC wrote:My opinion is that, yes it was neglectful to leave the children on that fateful holiday. However, imo it was, as far as we all know, a one-off situation of leaving them alone on that holiday and as far as we know they had never done anything like this previously - not that we can prove anyway. I doubt Social Services would remove children who come from an apparently otherwise caring home because the parents left them alone on a one-off holiday. There would, I think, have to be other reasons alongside that to recommend removal of the children i.e. children left dirty for long periods, children witnessing physical or verbal abuse by parents, not sufficient food in the house, chaotic and filthy home conditions, parents using drugs or being alcoholic. Now I know we have touched on whether any of the tapas friends and the McCanns may have used recreational drugs and I know we have touched on the amount of alcohol they may or may not have consumed on the holiday and particulary the night in question, but none of it can be proved.

Leaving children alone when everything else in their lives is regarded as caring, leaving them in a one-off scenario on holiday, is neglect of course but not sufficient neglect to warrant their removal as far as I am inclined to think.

I am inclined to think the McCanns were missing several spanners in their toolbox brains when they made the decision to leave their children and I am inclined to think the McCanns were walking a tightrope when they knew the children had been crying the night previous but still decided to leave them alone. However, for the reasons stated above, this does not, to my mind, warrant the childrens complete removal from the parents; it may have led to a hefty slap on the wrist from Social Services, a written warning of some sort, there may have been monitoring of the McCanns by Social Services for a while - we know they were paid a visit by Social Services but we do not know the outcome of that visit.

I agree with this.

I don't see how it can be denied really that it wasn't neglectful really, if we are to believe the group on this occassion that all the children at some stage were left alone in PT.

At the end of the day, the McCanns doctor has made this comment;

"If there had been cause for concern in any of the children, it would have been brought to my attention, and this did not happen."

Given this, it really does indicate that there was nothing in the slightest to suggest any of the McCann children were 'at risk' therefore even though in my opinion their decision to leave the children alone in PT was terrible, I don't believe their actions by the entire group as a whole warranted the removal of their children.

"If there had been cause for concern in any of the children, it would have been brought to my attention, and this did not happen."

And who would have brought this to the doctor's attention? The children were only seen for routine vaccinations by the nurses, and while I don't think the children would have been physically abused, nurses doing vaccinations don't do examinations and don't do much more than just vaccinate. So, how would cause for concern arise and if not the nurses, who else would pass on their concern to a GP rather than, say, Social Services?

cherry1 wrote:Fern posters know me and posters know you, many are aware of your conduct towards me over many many years, and nobody is taken in by your fakeness just as fake as your apology years ago for causing me over a year of distress (after my mum had died!!!!!!), and it hasnt ended.

I am trying to have sensible debate if you cant and you keep personally attacking me again as you have done today then I suggest you get off the forum.

Let that be an end to yet another of your personal attacks against me.

We are discussing the Mccann case!!

I refer to my previous post.


"You know full well that any 'discussion' you attempt to engage in with me always results in YOU throwing an almighty tantrum with claims of being bullied so why bother starting it in the first place ?

Admin don't need this type of disruption, its boring for other posters and in all honesty Cherry, I really cannot understand why you insist on continually taunting me. It really does appear as if you thrive on being a drama queen and causing trouble with those you don't quite agree with."

Perhaps you really do need to reflect Cherry on why you feel the need to interact with someone who has caused you such distress as you claim ? Why not just stay well away from me ? There are numerous posters on here who are certainly capable of excellent debate so why are you continually drawn to me ?

I'll say this again Cherry, if you can resist it then please do NOT interact with me ever.

AnnaEsse wrote:

"If there had been cause for concern in any of the children, it would have been brought to my attention, and this did not happen."

And who would have brought this to the doctor's attention? The children were only seen for routine vaccinations by the nurses, and while I don't think the children would have been physically abused, nurses doing vaccinations don't do examinations and don't do much more than just vaccinate. So, how would cause for concern arise and if not the nurses, who else would pass on their concern to a GP rather than, say, Social Services?

Cause for concern often begins when a child starts school' That is the time when neglect/abuse is noticed.

AnnaEsse wrote:

"If there had been cause for concern in any of the children, it would have been brought to my attention, and this did not happen."

And who would have brought this to the doctor's attention? The children were only seen for routine vaccinations by the nurses, and while I don't think the children would have been physically abused, nurses doing vaccinations don't do examinations and don't do much more than just vaccinate. So, how would cause for concern arise and if not the nurses, who else would pass on their concern to a GP rather than, say, Social Services?

Police, creche workers, others in medical profession, concerned friends/relatives, infact anyone who had concerns that a child was at risk from being harmed. As far as I'm aware Anna, a doctor would be informed if the Police/social services, for example, are involved with regards to any harm to a child.

Bobsy wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

"If there had been cause for concern in any of the children, it would have been brought to my attention, and this did not happen."

And who would have brought this to the doctor's attention? The children were only seen for routine vaccinations by the nurses, and while I don't think the children would have been physically abused, nurses doing vaccinations don't do examinations and don't do much more than just vaccinate. So, how would cause for concern arise and if not the nurses, who else would pass on their concern to a GP rather than, say, Social Services?

Cause for concern often begins when a child starts school' That is the time when neglect/abuse is noticed.

Yes and even prior to this Bobsy when/if they attend a creche.

(A friend of mine runs a creche and all staff attended a course on child protection.)