By Sky News crime correspondent Martin Brunt
I've almost given up trying to analyse announcements about the Madeleine case from Portuguese officials.
Everything that appears to be a clue, a development or admission of incompetence is then contradicted. And usually blamed on a poor translation.
Even those with fluent Portuguese struggle to understand the nuances of the country's complicated legal system.
So how am I expected to wade through the confusion?
The latest comes from the justice minister who claims, apparently, that the case is to be wrapped up with detectives conceding defeat.
They just don't know what happened to Madeleine.
In the wake of all this, I get two calls from colleagues in Portugal warning me to treat the story with care.
"It's still not clear what is being said," says one caller.
And that's from someone whose judgement is pretty good, but even he doesn't know what it means.
One thing is clear. The Madeleine story is going off the boil for the British media.
Page 23 in the Daily Express! Behind a photo spread revealing how much celebrity sons look like their mums. And it's not even Mother's Day.
Did Madeline know the person who took her,
is madeline now found as someone sugested on another blog.
Posted by: becky 2 Apr 2008 03:33:23
Louise Cheschire
Thanks for your kind words atleast someone has understood what I have been trying to say since I first posted on this blog.
My thoughts and prayers will always be with the McCanns and their precious daughter Madeleine
Posted by: Trish 31 Mar 2008 17:25:03
Posted by Trish
“As I have stated before the McCanns made an error in judgement that night, as they said they were "naieve" and I believe them. What I cant understand is why people cant offer them support. Suffice to say many of us parents have made unintentional errors as we are all human, you cannot (ever) say, I would never have done this or that. One never knows what circumstances arise, hence it could cost you something or someone dear.
I will never understand the hate and vilification people are plying on the McCanns, I mean they are doing everything humanly possible to continue the plight of finding their beloved daughter. Have you no heart. At the risk of repeating Bunny in his blog, why do people keep saying the same old **** over and over again, why cant you look for something positive, or do something proactive in trying to help the McCanns.
Trish Well said.
One of the best comments so far. I completely understand that you are not in agreement with leaving the children, but you will not victimise them for this. Madeleine is their daughter, this is their hurt not ours. They do not owe us an apology as so many people seem to demand.
As for the patronising response from A Millar- halleluiah etc that Trish has seen the light. If you actually read Trish’s comments throughout , it has been extremely clear that she does not condone leaving the children and never has, she just is not prepared to keep going on about it and use it as a reason to throw abuse at a family in agony, as it doesn’t solve anything or help anyone. Least of all Madeleine.
Posted by: Louise Cheshire 31 Mar 2008 17:06:38
A.Miller,
I want to express to you my apretition of your posts: they are balanced, very well written, very open minded and not inflamatory!
I do think that leaving all that children was wrong, unfortunatly one of them pay a high price!
I do think that if we don't say that loud and clear other children maybe at risk too if their parents follow this bad example.
Posted by: Eduarda - Braga - Portugal 31 Mar 2008 14:08:00
Hi Trish,
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
We have a 'new dawning' - how wonderful to know that you do not in fact condone the actions of Mr. Mrs. McCann when they left their children alone.
It was an horrific thing to do, don't you think?
As long as people like us, like minded, stick together, we can make our stance against those who treat children in this way - children must come first!
'Children First' incidentally is one of Scotland's oldest child welfare charities, this is their 'working' name. You may know it as Royal Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children?
I think you will agree that it has been named so perfectly?
Thank you once more, and
halleluja, there is a god!
(just an expression)
I will indeed have a good weekend.
Kindest Regards
Posted by: A.Miller 28 Mar 2008 17:58:46
A Miller
No I certainly dont condone leaving your children but I also dont condone kicking people when they are down. I believe in helping ones neighbour. You may not be a religious person but didnt Jesus die to save our sins, maybe we can all take a leaf out of his book and try help rather than condemn.
Have a good week-end
Posted by: Trish 28 Mar 2008 16:31:07
Vera essex. 09.37. 28/3
Vera all this time on here and I never knew that information was there. Anyway I looked and did not get past No.1 as that more or less sums it up for me. However I will view the rest this weekend. Good job sky made the link in your post direct to the page or it would have took me all afternoon to get it right.
Thank you again.
Sandra Ryan.
Posted by: Sandra Ryan. Spain. 28 Mar 2008 15:25:05
To A Miller.
I have read these blogs from the very beginning, but have not been a major contributor. I just wanted to say to you that I think all your posts are extremely well written and well thought out and I wholeheartedly support everything you say.
Posted by: Yummy Mummy, UK 28 Mar 2008 12:51:37
Kate,
I did post to you last evening but it has not been entered.
My partner, that you asked about, has passed away.
I know though that he would only have had to take one look at the posts from both you and Dave to see the inscincerity and insensitivity which screams out from them in respect of these children.
His disbelief at what he read from people in the field that you both claim to be from, he would not have been able to hide.
Your post was distasteful, and on that basis I won't be answering it perse.
You have been most dishonest in your quoting of not only my posts but those of others-
blatantly lying. Dave likewise.
I realise you have your motives for doing so.
Your criticisms of my post, really doesnt bother me in the least.
Honesty, however would be very much appreciated.
Perhaps a talk with Dave's priest would point you both to the realisation that it is a sin to lie.
Any blogger worth their salt will only have to take one look at them and know this to be true.
If you cannot quote bloggers correctly, perhaps you should refrain from doing so.
Regards
Posted by: A.Miller 28 Mar 2008 10:16:52
Trish,
I know you think the same as Dave, that it was okay to leave the children unattended.
That's your prerogative.
If you feel also, that anyone who states, what is truthful -
that Madeleine's parents left their three children without adequate care (and it wasnt adequate or Madeleine wouldnt be missing) - is dragging them through the gutter so be it.
Your view - I don't have a problem with that.
Perhaps you'd prefer that everyone lied about this?. Didn't discuss it?
The blog is here as a platform for discussion.
You say what you wish - I say what I wish to.
That's how it works. I'm afraid, no one person has the monopoly on it.
Looks like you'll just have to live with me repeating that the McCann's left their children and that I don't agree with this action.
Kindest Regards
Posted by: A.Miller 28 Mar 2008 10:00:54
dve mate
get a grip.
weve had the barrister, the priest, the pope the dali lama, now the little KIDS who you have spoken to and have as you say, understanding of this case and your views.
god forbid.
enough to turn the stomach of any decent person - you have no shame or morals mate.
i know you try to frighten folk here adults - but get a grip mate - your speaking to kids trying to frighten the s---- out of them talking to them about missing Madeleine and your misguided views and the lies you spout!!
did you tell them that if they dont agree with you that the monster that took madeleine (the one your always banging on about )
will get them ?
You who works in protecting kids?.
if someone has been so stupid as to emply you, and agrees with your threatening attitude on this blog and knows that you discuss these issues with little kids -
then they shouldnt hold the position they do either.
i was going to ask what kind of man are you - but as far as these kids no doubt will be concerned you will be a monster.
dont want to offend any bloggers i know some agree with some of the content of this guys posts but no decent human who cares for kids in the smallest of ways could agree with his methods and statement on the blog.
now he tells us the tv coverage when mccanns state tehy left kids (which mccanns had full power over wht was put on air) etc isnt for real.,
reality check bloggers - bloggers no one here, surely can take that statement seriously.
we all know they left the kids.
dave doesnt think they did.
wonder where he thinks wee Madleine is?
it really isnt anything to do with innocednt until proven guilty, with dave. the guy just wont even admit that mccanns left the kids.
now what is that about?
even the mccnn family believe they did.
but dave doesnt.
something seriously wrong.
cheers
Posted by: Martin Glasgow 28 Mar 2008 09:45:38
A Miller
You say you, Sandra and Britt have a lot in common, you got that right - now that you have aired your grievances, why dont you try something positive or constructive in the search for what happened to Madeleine instead of dragging her parents through the gutter.
Positive thoughts are what is now needed not the constant slanderous jibes at the parents.
Posted by: Trish 28 Mar 2008 09:45:27
If anyone is interested in seeing the full story in scripts and videos from Sky, follow the link below.
There are four pages about this case including interviews with the McCann’s. Start on the fourth page at the bottom and work upwards and backwards as in page 4, 3, 3 and 1. They are all dated as to when the interviews occurred.
http://search.sky.com/search/skynews/results/1,,,00.html?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&START=0&NUM=10&CID=30000&search_target=on&QUERY=ian+woods+interview+with+mccanns&imageField.x=643&imageField.y=140&imageField=Search
Posted by: Vera, Essex 28 Mar 2008 09:37:33
Sandra Ryan,
Hi Sandra,
I see you are keeping busy popping back and forth.
Thanks for your comments.
Hannah has come up with some answers for us on the other site - knew she would.
Our views Sandra, and those of Brit, in respect of putting childrens safety above all else, are clearly on a par.
Tragic to think there are some who think differently in this regard.
Mais C'est la vie.
I've a load of paperwork to get through tonight, before an early start in the morning.
Best make a start.
Nice to speak to you.
Take care.
kind Regards
Posted by: A.Miller 27 Mar 2008 22:43:34
Can't say this any simpler.
I DO think Mr. Mrs. McCann neglected their children the night Madeleine disappeared.
In reference to a discussion re this - in legal terms - I acknowledged that if they have not attended court on this charge or been found guilty of this by a court of law then they are innocent - In the eyes of the law!
Most definitely not in my opinion.
Nothing contradictory about that.
Hope that clarifies matters.
Regards
Posted by: A.Miller 27 Mar 2008 21:27:43
Britt Texas
In my last blog to you, I blogged under my second name which is Kristin - so dont get confused, my name is Trish-Kristin.
Have a good evening!
Posted by: Trish 27 Mar 2008 16:15:11
Brit Texas
No I don't think it is a poor choice or words at all, in fact you of all people should appreciate it as that is what you have been doing thoughout this blog.
Why dont you take yourself on a trip down memory lane, and you will see the utter vitriol you have written about the McCanns - maybe after reading it you might change your tune. For you Brit, "people in glass houses should not throw stones"
Posted by: kristin 27 Mar 2008 16:07:17
Posted by: A.Miller 26 Mar 2008 16:21:37
Dave
I did not say that Mr.Mrs.McCann were innocent of neglect or abuse?
My goodness you are confused.
Please point to the post where I said this?
Here you go:
Posted by: A.Miller 25 Mar 2008 09:45:23
We all understand, that as Mr. Mrs. McCann have not attended court on charges of child neglect, or been found guilty of this charge by a court of law that they are innocent.
A.Miller, through your lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues and of concepts you constantly contradict yourself but don’t realise it and don’t even understand when it is pointed out to you. You very often state that the McCanns are innocent of child neglect/abuse and then go on to say that they are guilty of child neglect. You still haven’t understood that all and every source of information that you have is incomplete (you might have the equivalent of 1 piece of a 1 million piece jig-saw puzzle ) yet you claim to know for certain what did and did not happen. You fail to recognise that even TV clips of interviews are incomplete, distorted, biased and unreliable sources of information and certainly not a source for judging or concluding about something as serious or real as child neglect/abuse. To be honest I know young school children that understand the logic and reasoning of this far better than you do. Also, of the information you have access to, including TV interview clips, you have no idea what of it is lies, truth, half-truths, assumption, mistakes, rumour, myth and so on.
You have made large numbers of conclusions and judgements but have absolutely no basis for doing so.
A common case study scenario used in child protection training involves showing a video of a possible child neglect/abuse situation for 10 minutes. The video, or role play, is stopped. The students are asked what they think. Usually nearly a 100% say they think the parents are guilty of child neglect, why, they say, the parents have even said self incriminating statements. The video is played for another 10 minutes and further information is revealed. Again the students are asked what they think. This time usually about a third say that they still think that the parents are guilty of child neglect, a third say that the parents are not guilty of child neglect and a third say they are now unsure what to think. The video, or role play, goes on for another 10 minutes presenting yet more information. For the last time the students are asked what they think. This time you usually get close to 100% of the students saying that the parents are not guilty of child neglect/abuse. The big lesson learnt – never, ever jump to conclusions or make judgements without knowing the full picture and range of facts and truths involved. Big lessons are also learnt about the reliability and validity of sources of information. This includes learning that parents can say things that seem to incriminate themselves but once the full picture is known it becomes obvious that such information and statements can lead to completely the wrong conclusion and judgement. Such lessons are crucial because making these conclusions and judgements can do a huge amount of harm to children and to their families.
Well pointed out and said Kate, UK.
Posted by: Dave, Birmingham 27 Mar 2008 15:06:11
"""""At the risk of repeating Bunny in his blog, why do people keep saying the same old **** over and over again, Posted by: Trish 26 Mar 2008 17:11:32"""""
"""""I apologise if I appear aggressive but it just makes me angry to see other people "get off" on someone else's hurt. Posted by: Trish 26 Mar 2008 17:11:32"""""
Trish, I think you'll find that certain things get repeated on this blog because new faces tend to pop up, or even old faces that haven't been around for a while. Those people make comments and/or ask questions, thus you read a lot of the same answers and hear a lot of the same rhetoric. This happens not only with those posters who deplore the McCann's blissful ignorance, but also with those who don't.
And, to make myself absolutely clear, since I am a blogger who disagree's that leaving your 2 & 3 year olds alone each evening for 5/6 nights is simply "naive", I absolutely and utterly take offence at the notion of "getting off" on someone else's hurt, by saying so. I find your poor choice of words to be disgusting.
Posted by: Brit in Texas 27 Mar 2008 14:34:22
Morning Trish,
I categorically can say that I would never leave my child unsupervised.
Never have, never will.
You don't simply forget to organise the babysitter, 5/6 nights running.
This didn't happen because something outwith their control happened - something so awful that both parents had to leave the apartment 5/6 evenings and not organise a sitter.
They both left the children, so that they could go out and wine and dine.
Nothing wrong in that, wining and dining in itself - but they had three babies to look after.
One parent could have gone to the restaurant for a period of time, then the other, taking it in turn.
If all of these parents, not just adult McCann's were going to be going back and forth - would it not have made more sense - to have a rota system of babysitters?
All children would then have been looked after.
Certainly all parents would not then have had every evening out to wine and dine, perhaps two evenings each?
Those parents whose 'turn' it was to go out, could then relax and enjoy their evening, knowing that their children were in safe hands - without to-ing and fro-ing.
My brother (solicitor) and his wife, went on holiday with friends of theirs who have two young children. My brother and his wife did not have children of their own.
The two men in the party had an evening out together, as did the two women. A night for each couple to go out together, all other nights as a group, children included.
It really isn't difficult.
The children were then, at all times in the care of responsible adults.
When you have children, this is what you do - put them first.
I appreciate that the adult McCann's are grieving their missing daughter, for that we all give them sympathy.
However, I cannot support their actions on the evening Madeleine went missing.
It would be so very wrong to do so.
I would be failing Madeleine and all other children if I condoned this.
It is not naieveity.
Did they behave like this at home?
They say they didn't.
To say that they thought it was safe on holiday in a foreign country, so didnt bother with a sitter.
Yet they get sitters at home, where the children are in familiar surroundings.
So they are not naieve when at home - but naieve when on holiday?
Sorry Trish - Madeleine is the victim here.
Regards
Posted by: A.Miller 27 Mar 2008 10:09:51
Trish,
Explain to me please, if someone has a differing opinion to another on the blog, and voices it, how then does this become an attack?
I'd genuinely like to know.
Bloggers do not agree at all times with my posts, and voice it.
I would never accuse them of attacking me. That, to me, is just so ridiculously silly.
They are entitled to come back and tell me what they think of what I write, be it in agreement or not.
I don't get offended by it.
If we all came on and said the self same thing, what would be the point?
We are all individuals, able to think for ourselves.
I think, you very much underestimate the bloggers - I don't think the woods are being blocked by the trees at all.
They do indeed understand what Dave is saying, they perhaps just don't agree with him.
There is a huge difference between not understanding and not agreeing, or not choosing to do as Dave does, or what he tells them to.
The fact that they don't fall in line, does not mean that there is a lack of ability to understand.
Quite an arrogant assumption, don't you think?
I don't see how you relate these two.
I have stated to Dave on several occasions, that I, and others fully understand, all that he says. I just don't agree with it all.
Just as he does not agree with all that others say.
Which is perfectly fair.
It is also so very simple.
Why do you feel then that it is an attack, when say perhaps I put my point across, as opposed to when, for instance Dave puts his across?
Dave and I most definitely don't agree on very much, but I don't feel that he attacks me.
Do you feel when people differ in opinion from you on the blog that you are being attacked?
Such a shame if you do.
Anyway, as I said to Dave - It is not necessarily that people disagree with all that he says, rather they object to the delivery, he dictates.
He can't make or insist that people think or do as he does.
I can't make or insist that you think as I do Trish.
I wouldn't insult you by attempting to.
I am sure you can think for yourself.
While I am here, I know you are all for supporting Mr. Mrs. McCann.
May I ask, what is your stance about the children being left unattended?
Is this something you yourself would do?
I promise, I will not label you a McCann hater if you think it is wrong.
I'm merely asking out of interest.
What do you think of the news that Mr.Murat may soon have the arguido status lifted? (if reports are correct)
Sandra asked today if this would be possible, as the investigation is not yet complete?
Attempted to find out, but didn't come across anything.
Have asked Hannah, if she is around, to perhaps have a wee look, she tends to find for us, what we fail to.
I think what Bunny said today is right - that what any of us writes on this blog, will really not in any way help find Madeleine. Foolish to think that it would.
I agree with Bunny in this respect.
We do come on, to discuss and hear the opinions of others.
Contrary to what Dave wrote in his post above - I did not say to Bunny that I came on here to - satisfy my own selfish interests and gossip.
I can't imagine anyone would make such a foolish statement.
He interpreted 'we all come on here to discuss and hear the thoughts of others' to -
'I come on here to satisfy my own selfish interests and gossip.'
Quite a leap eh?
And I certainly did not, say that only the posts of those bloggers who agree with me, are those which will not help Madeleine.
Bunny certainly did not say this either.
We both stated that by posting here, it really doesn't help the case.
It applied to all blogs, mine yours, Dave's, everyones.
Dave does tend to take liberties, with what people say.
Chinese Whispers pale into insignificance compared to this.
Usually, takes a few repetitions before a statement morphs in chinese whispers - Dave did it all in one step. What I said became instantly unrecogisable!
Must go, getting late and I have a few busy days ahead.
Happy blogging.
Regards
Posted by: A.Miller 27 Mar 2008 01:20:56
Hello A. Miller & Brit Texas.
What can I add to what you have both already said, absolutely nothing. You have expressed the feelings and sentiments of so many of us so clearly and without offense. I wish I could be of more help on paper. I can only offer you both my support in all that you say.
Never in my lifetime have I seen such a huge public response to a child/children's welfare. If it came about through this particular case of MADELEINES disappearance,sad to say, but so be it. The fact that so many people are taking the time to voice their opinions on the very serious subject of children and their needs fills me with hope. The public's awareness of the vulnerability of children can only be a step in the
right direction. I would like to thank both of you for supporting this awareness.
Kind Regards. Sandra Ryan.
---------------
To Bunny. I don't wish to be responsible for bringing you back to the blog as you said at the end of your comment you hoped it was for the last time, but please do not assume that people on here have nothing better to do and are not involved already in making a difference, and helping where it matters with children we know and those we will never meet, because in some cases you assume wrongly. No offense Bunny and there is no need to reply. And me being me I have to add that A. Miller and Brit Texas can also fight their own corner and also deserve respect.
Yours Sincerely.
Sandra Ryan.
Posted by: Sandra Ryan. Spain. 26 Mar 2008 21:23:02
A Miller I want to give you some very serious food for thought. looking at what you have said today you have admitted that what you do here is only to satisfy your own interests. You have also said that you understand and realise that you make libellous comments about the McCanns - but your attitude about this is basically 'so what' 'that is my look out'. You do realise that you are taking very serious risks of being sued for libel don't you - well you've already said you understand this. The harm that this does to Kate and Gerry McCann and their children should be enough to stop you. However, do you realise that you could lose a very large amount of money if you are sued for libel. You could lose your house and go bankrupt. Do your children and husband or partner, if you have one, realise that you are knowingly gambling with their security and home? Do you care? Or is it another case of so be it? You are open and honest with them aren't you and have told them that you are taking this risk with their security and home everyday? What kind of mother or parent should I assess you as in light of this?
Like Bunny and Trish say, you really should take notice of what db tells you. He is telling the truth. And you really have no facts with which to judge the McCanns by. Please show some consideration for the McCann children, their parents and indeed your own family. Will you continue to risk your family's security and home just to satisfy your interest on the internet? I guess we will all see the answer soon enough by either your ongoing behaviour of risk and abuse or of stopping for the sake of others.
Posted by: Kate, UK 26 Mar 2008 20:27:54
Dave,
Are you suggesting that if we all agree with you, that our lives would be better?
What a strange world it would be if we all thought alike.
Dave, each and every one of us is perfectly entitled to give our support to whom and to whatever cause we wish.
I have no objection in any way, of the support you claim to give to Mr. Mrs. McCann.
If they perhaps read your posts and take comfort from them, that is fine too.
No harm in that, each to their own, as they say.
You cannot force your ideas on others and that is what you attempt to do.
If they are not in agreement, then they are 'bad' people.
I feel that is quite an arrogant attitude to adopt.
Have you any suggestions as to how you can improve your own life, make you a better person, than you already feel yourself to be? Or are your suggestions reserved for others?
A great part of my life has been, my involvement in childrens charities, to which I have been dedicated for many years and given, hours of my time, too numerous to mention. Raising many thousands of £'s over the years. A career also, working with young children.
To me, their care and protection is paramount.
I have a very large family, Dave, all who work in some way with children.
A very close, and much loved family member, who sadly passed away, devoted his life to the care and protection of chidren. (Scottish Childrens Reporter.)
Several members of my family work with the various departments involved in the care and protection of children. Such dedicated people. In the legal field also.
Other members, teaching, some specifically, with special needs, also disabled children.
I have one child Dave, to whom I am devoted. I consider myself blessed to have been given such a happy, healthy child.
A child I would never leave alone in the circumstances that Mr. Mrs. McCann left theirs. My child is much too precious to take such chances with his welfare.
I simply, do not have it in me, to walk out and leave a child, any child alone.
For me, the mere thought of them waking, their pain and fear at being alone. Such a terrifying thought, not to mention all else that could happen.
I honestly would not be able to relax, eat a meal, knowing my child was alone. I would not be able to swallow a single mouthful.
I could not bear the thought of my child alone and frightened.
I could not in all conscience do this to any child.
It really is a pity Dave that you accuse people of campaigns of hate, being McCann haters etc.
Kate, also said I had a campaign of hate against those working in child protection!
I laughed aloud at that. I would have to hate, most of my family, those dearest to me, who do a tremendous job in this field.
On a blog Dave, we really do not know who we are speaking to, or anything about them.
Kate's remark was a perfect example of this.
Why she said it, makes me curious - as at no time did I ever, make comment (a hate campaign as she said) against child protection officers.
I reckon all bloggers on here are good and decent people.
We all have different opinions, doesn't make one right and one wrong.
Doesn't make one of us better than the other.
We all have different ways of expressing our opinions, some, shall we say, more flamboyant or colourful than others.
All, I would say, have good hearts.
Dave, I have answered/posted to you this week, more than anything, in the hope that you would see, that you have made your point, re the libel, empathy etc.
No one expects you to change your opinion Dave, or to not voice it, on matters relevant to the blog.
You are very much entitled to do so, as we all are.
We can all agree to disagree.
It is when you dictate to others, tell them what they should be doing, that it is not appreciated.
It is not for you to decide Dave what other bloggers should do, say, think, or believe in, or to tell them how to spend their time.
Just as it is not for us to tell you what to think, or how to spend your time.
I'm sure that not all of what you have said has been disregarded.
We are not all, as you so often suggest incapable of undertstanding the points you make.
It is okay to make the points, and, however many times also that you choose to.
But really, it is not for you or anyone else to tell us that we must heed them.
Even when I have posted to you, stating that I do fully understand what you are saying and agree with you in respect of innocent until proven guilty. You choose to ignore this, and repeat once more in respect of empathy. (usually telling me that I am a mccann hater, attacking you etc - it does I have to admit, make me smile, purely and simply because it is such a ridiculous statement to make, and so predictable.)
I'm sure the bloggers understand completely what you are saying in this regard -
but they don't have to agree, or do as you bid Dave.
Try to remember that most of us do not view this from a legal point of view or from the viewpoint of someone whose career lies within child protection.
We see, children who were left on their own, for considerable periods of time by their parents.
I would hope Dave, that as we can see where you are coming from, that you also must understand, that to most people - this wasn't a responsible action.
I do believe that bloggers respect, your right to an opinion, (or to quote the law) Dave, but that doesn't necessarily follow that we have to agree with it.
We may agree, with some, part of, or none. Depending on your post.
And you likewise, with posts made by others.
It is your dictating that is the problem.
You cannot make people agree, or force them to.
Just as I cannot force you, to change your way of thinking to match mine or anyone elses. Mine being that I think it was wrong for the McCann children to have been left in the situation that they were.
I don't believe that I am making an attack on you by saying this. Just as I don't believe you are making an attack on me by your responses.
I really don't understand, when someone receives a post, differing in opinion to theirs, how or why this constitutes an 'attack' or a campaign against them.
Quite extraordinary train of thought.
Why is it not just someone voicing a different train of thought?
Anyway, you seem to feel, that if I change my opinion on the action of Mr. Mrs. McCann, that it will make my life better in some way.
You suggest that I should try it and see if it makes my life better.
I won't change my opinion as to what they did. Just as you won't change yours Dave. I wouldn't dream of asking you to change your beliefs.
For me to change my opinion, would be against all that I believe in -
the care and protection of children.
My life at this point in time could not be bettered. I enjoy it very much. I have a very full life. I have no desire to better, what I already have been so fortunate, to have had bestowed on me.
My wonderful son makes me the happiest parent on the planet. I couldn't ask for more. I have the honour and pleasure of working with the most precious and vulnerable little persons in society.
I am extremely caring and give of my time to those who I consider I am able to help most.
Doing as you do, would not make my life better.
If I do ever feel that it needs to be bettered, it will be in a way of my choosing.
I do hope you will receive this post in the manner it was intended without malice.
I won't post to you again Dave. Partly, as I have said all that I have to say, and partly because you do not reply to points/questions posed, you are very careful to avoid what you don't want to be quizzed on. Interesting watching you dodge!
Anyway, at least we have allowed the other bloggers the peace to get on with some discussion on the other blog while we were bantering back
and forth on this blog below!!
Not meaning to be rude, but perhaps you could try a different approach and your posts won't fall on deaf ears.
Just a thought.
Regards
Posted by: A.Miller 26 Mar 2008 20:09:14
Therefore, you, Holly and I are in agreement in this respect.
Kind Regards
Posted by: A.Miller 26 Mar 2008 12:28:21
Well, if it makes you happy...
Posted by: maria, in portugal 26 Mar 2008 17:15:24