Facts, I think it is rather good and stand by it. They have lost their child through their own behaviour, which was at least grossly negligent. I would feel sorry for parents in either situation, I would believe their remorse, but I would have no doubt who was to blame and wouldn't expect the media to be that sympathetic.

Canary - they were. I will look, but I recommend you do to, for the details of the bar bill. There was a lot of wine drunk, and I am no prude about drinking.

canaryboy nobody is making any big deal about whether or not they were sober

people are making a big deal about the fact they went out for a drink.

going out for a drink and getting drunk are 2 different things but you are trying to make make it sound like they are the same

if you don't lock the door and are burgled it's hardly your fault you were robbed either

thanks easter,i wish i never used the term on the lash,as said imo leaving your children alone is a no no

if you don't lock the door and are burgled it's hardly your fault you were robbed either

yes it is. but obviously every one is responsible for their own actions so to that end then nobody is repsonsible for anything that happens to them?

canary - if you ever have children, you will obviously leave them to fend for themselves as you feel so strongly about it.

In which case, I would have the snip now if I was you.

we agree on that one canary ;)

or june

canaryboy 14 Jan 11:28
yeah they're bad parents obviously

but for leaving their kids alone

specsavers

book now please

I can't believe you're rehearsing this horse** yet again, with our boys battling it out in Jo'burg.

As reluctant as I am to offer a contrary view to HOC, I doubt you would be gaoled and, while my knowledge of family law is restricted to a couple of favours before CSA Tribunals, I would humbly submit that an absolute ban in perpetuity would be similarly unlikely.

and people keep talking about it

everyone is to blame

orioles, I know f. all about family law, but I know from experience of others and myself, I would be f*cked. I would certainly be given a particrlalry torris time for a long period of time.

And prison if abandoned whilst down the pub? I fancy I might have to.

Bell is in a position to rid all the doubters here, have you any idea if the wicket is part of the story?

I bow to your knowledge, Sib. Truth be told, I avoided family like Boycott and a quick single to get him off strike for the next over.

Lots of rain recently in Jo'burg, wicket has an odd striped look with a bit of juice and pace. We won the toss though and decided to bat and have left Onions out!

I suppose the stats bear out the decision to have a knock, but I'm bewildered by the omission of the Durham boy.

Strauss got a golden duck, 1st England captain since the '30s to be out first ball of a Test - which seems odd.

Are we the wife? She'll be chuffed! :^0

Onions was warming up with a face like thunder. It's seaming about and swinging, so maybe Sidebottom can make hay, but it seems very harsh.

'Fresh legs' was the lame excuse.








I'll get me white coat, panama and six mini Watney's red barrels. PLAY.

the word 'allegedly' saved that from being an outrageous post then!

I think that the whole situation is unbelievably tragic. But a lot of things about the case are rather unbelievable as well.

It is unforgivable that they left the children and this is what the whole thing hinges on. Whether they killed her, she died accidentaly or was abducted, IF they had been there (or had a responsible person in loco parentis) then the disapearence could not have happened. If they have killed her then they have made a fatal (!) mistake by going out and leaving the other children as that alone raises questions. If they have administered some sort of sedative to the children (and that of their friends who also left their chldren alone whilst they were at the restaurant) and Maddy died of natural causes under it then they are in the wrong for giving that sedative to enable them to go out. This would have been found out on a post mortem and would have undoubtedly led to legal action not just for them but for their friends as well, not to mention the almost certain end of his Doctors job. If they have sedated her on more than one occasion and this has been noticed by a paedo then his task would have been made easier by having a comatose child to carry rather than a crying, screaming one that would attract attention.

Rememeber that they are Catholics and if they gave a confession to a Priest he would not break his vow of silence and would never tell anyone. They have asked for and recieved a private audience with the Pope, he too would not tell anyone but could offer them some form of absolution in Gods eyes to help with their feelings of guilt.

I do think that whatever the circumstances it was a terrible accident and one that the McCanns will live with forever. I do go along with yorkys point that in some ways it would be 'better' for Madeline if she died at the apartment from the sedative rather than after horrfic abuse from a gang of paedos.

This case reminds me of the case in Australia in the 70's where the baby was 'taken by Dingos' and that was never solved in any satisfactory manner.

the only reason they werent charged with manslaughter under portuguese law is simple....

there is no body to use as evidence.... they have found blood in the car and they have found evidence of it in the apartment all of which were explained away by the mccanns, the specially trained dogs they use to smell the gases only emitted by a recently decaying body were found by the sniffer dogs in the apartment the day after.

but with no body and everyone in their party saying they were in the restaurant etc when the alleged kidnap took place... the police are virtually powerless.

im not sure what really happened and as such wont hang them out to dry like some have, but i do hope what one poster said was right, that the young girl wasnt abducted by some paedo group.