Gilly wrote:
No, the comparison was with being in a hotel bar next door the bedroom where the child is. We did that as we assessed the risk as being the same as when we are at home. Yes there are strangers about, unlike the house but the room is locked, unlike at the house.

Barnfish wrote:
Then why are you defending the "risk" as you call it, if you are merely interested in what others are saying, you are attempting to justify their position....i for one do not drink fluoride barnfish

Gilly wrote:
But what happened was an event unheard of in that location. As I said before, it was not as if they were in Bogota, kidnap capital of the world. I think there was a not unreasonable assessment of risk, even though like you, I would not have done what they did. We would have taken it in turns to stay whilst the other ate with friends. But I do not think what they did was outrageous.

The assessment of risk has nothing to do with the need for space or freedom.

And could you see the door of the child's room from the bar? Did it have views so that you could see who was knocking about near the child's window,
like most people can at home - where, unlike a hotel, you wouldn't expect people to be knocking about immediately outside the premises? Was there music playing in the bar?

You specifically asked, so I'll tell you, I think that was extremely irresponsible of you.

Even now with my son 11 years old, if we're going away, we get a family room, and if he wants a kip, at least one of us is in the room with him all the time.

And if nobody's been snatched from that hotel before, is that a sound logical reason to risk your child's safety? Of course it bloody isn't!

Murderers & sicko's come in all areas & in all guises.

Goldenprince13 wrote:
I am interested in others opinions and expressing my own. However, this appears to be going the way of the other forum discussions I have read.

Please elaborate.

Barnfish wrote:
That will be because you are not here to see others opinions but steer them barnfish, no doubt the same as other forums,

As for the middle aged man smartly dressed who you have no thoughts over....how do you feel about the fact two friends of the mccanns and him & his wife, made a statement to the police over what they deemed was inappropriate sexual gestures he made when discussing maddy with her dad ??

Gilly wrote:
There was low music in the bar which never had any more than five people in it. We would hear any attempt to break into the room through the window or door into the room next to us. We only decided that we would sit in the bar when we found our room was right next door. It was not too dissimilar to cottages and chalets we have stayed in where there are people about and we are in a room away from our child.

No instance of a crime before compared to some or regular is a good reason to base risk decisions on. We are very careful in cities and unfamiliar places. We are relaxed were it is quiet and there is low/no crime. The McCanns had been at their holiday for 6 days and were with 7 other adults and 5 children they knew before they went away. I can see why they felt relaxed.

Gilly wrote:
Those who sympathise for the McCanns and the decision they made to leave the kids alone are roundly condemned on forums.

The interesting thing is that as was pointed out, the authorities have not jailed them or taken the other kids away, like Wayne and Waynetta.

Goldenprince13 wrote:
Am I not allowed to express my opinion and ask for others?

His picture and what happened are unconnected. Deciding on what someone is like from what they look like is wrong.

Barnfish wrote:
Well that's not surprising to me, since it's clearly a very stupid thing to leave small children unattended. Why do you find it interesting? What are you conclusion are you drawing from that point?

Feeling relaxed isn't any excuse. If they'd been with 5 x that number of adults, it doesn't alter the fact that none of them stayed to ensure the safety of those kids. And look what happened as a result. One's gone, and nobody knows what happened to her.

Barnfish wrote:

Gilly wrote:
I doubt very much your children are in your or another trusted adults presence 24/7. There are times when they are alone (with or without similarly aged children/siblings). So you too take risks. The difference between us is that you feel able to condemn the McCanns as outrageous risk takers, whereas I do not (even though I would nto have done what they did).

Goldenprince13 wrote:
OK, so I am not allowed to have an opinion and express an interest in what others have to say. Instead I am team McCann and driven by an agenda.

I do not know the case well enough to know who the picture was of. So I have no opinion on what the McCanns have to say about him as I do not know the details. I furthered my point what someone looks like or their status should not dictate who gets believed or not. I am not justifying all they did, I am expressing an understanding for what they did and why they did it.

scaltura wrote: Not just wow but YIKES! They walk amongst us,

I can post pictures and exaggerate as well

Exaggerate.....

The Song is Beat it....

Or, the difference between us is that you defend the McCanns for leaving the kids in a dangerous situation, whereas I think it was completely indefensible, criminal, and was possibly the very least of their crimes.

Gilly wrote:

ain't that the truth