No point arguing with you when you've got your head up your ar5e.

says the "man" quoting Wiki as fact.

you couldn't make it up (well, you could, but nobody would believe it)

Do you always try and make posts as gormless as your avatar?

your lack of respect and knowledge is noted

do you always have an avatar that looks nothing like any woman you'll ever get within 100 miles of?

I don't have any respect for you. And you're right, I have no knowledge who your gormless avatar is.



Not always. I have had an avatar of Jose Mourinho before.

I've been within about 40 miles of the young lady in my avatar. Could've met her too, if I'd wanted to. Not quite that sad though.

it's nice to know ignorance and arrogance abound on the Sin Bin

I am sure you'll make someone proud one day, an undertaker perhaps.

Who is your gormless avatar of? Why should I know who he is?

I have respect for Johnny Whiteley's achievements in RL. It's still a gormless photo though. If you had enough respect for him you'd have got a better pic and wouldn't post like a tvvat while using his pic.

Translation: you know you made a prat of yourself, but think going ad hominem will somehow make you look clever. It doesn't. Now, about that point. Was there one, or are you conceding it?

No, you made a prat of yourself with the moronic comment that the "police" don't have jurisdiction in foreign countries to charge the McCann's with child neglect.

I made the point that it would have been the Portuguese police who charged them with child neglect.

You then said that it wouldn't be the Portuguese police charging them, as they looked into that possibility and didn't.

I posted from wikipedia which outlined the fact that the Portuguese police named them as suspects in the murder of their child.

So when exactly do you think the Portuguese police were considering charging the McCann's with child neglect? Before or after they thought that the McCann's killed their child?

And you were clearly the one to go ad hominem with your "Is there a point in there somewhere, struggling for attention?"

Ah, so you felt that a "moronic" comment nevertheless justified a serious reply. Interestingly dotty.


Aye. Not much gets past you, does it?


Yes, this being a random bit of old news which had nothing whatsoever to do with the point relating to child neglect. Except, of course, in your head, where I understand it was, you thought, some killer point. But why would you think that? Let's see:

Ah! Great! Heavily laden with sarcasm, but you reveal that you actually think that it's an either-or scenario. You don't think the Portuguese authorities are smart enough to consider all possibilities? Is that it? or what?


This is not ad hominem. This is referring directly to a post made by you. Not to you. You made a post, the relevant point of which was not discernible. I challenged the lack of point. I suggest you look up "ad hominem".

Oh, btw, I think that the Portuguese authorities were considering whether or not the McCanns should be charged with child neglect from the early part of their investigations. Why do I think this? Because they said so.

Wow! That shocked you, didn't it! You thought you had another killer point there, and yet again instead all you have is egg on your face. If you want to check, confirmation of this was released on 28th May 2008 in official court documents released by the Supreme Court of Justice in Evora. These, inter alia, showed that one of the things the police were looking into was abandonment, for which you can be jailed in Portugal for up to 10 years, but the prosecution would have to prove an intention to neglect the child.

Sorry to pis=#FFFFFF.s on your self righteous bonfire again, but you do set yourself up.

Oh, for goodness' sake, you're all missing the point ... how will it all affect my house price?
That's the key issue here.

It wasn't a *serious* reply. It was a simple pointing out that they do have police in Portugal.



I'd made the point at great length in posts previously that a child neglect charge on parents who had lost a child to abduction (and possibly murder) was unnecessary when they were already suffering the loss of that child.



The Portuguese authorities weren't smart enough to correctly analyse the DNA evidence before them and wrongly declared the McCann's as suspects in her killing. So I don't think they would have been particularly interested in pursuing a neglect case against them at that time.

Wouldn't pursuing a neglect case by charging the McCann's of leaving her alone that night have slightly got in the way of their theory that one, or both, of them were actually murdering Madeline?



Just stop ****ing lying. The "struggling for attention?" was a clear jibe. A slightly more subtle jibe was the "Is there a point in there somewhere"



I suggest you go eff yourself.



So why did you chime in with your "I know we're in Europe an' all, but I'm still not 100% certain that the police have jurisdiction over alleged offences in forrin countries."?



All I have on my face is the excrement that has been spat out from your mouth.



They were looking into a neglect charge and ultimately rejected it. As I've been saying all along a neglect charge was inappropriate this pretty much supports what I've been arguing from the start.



You are full of s**t.

Nice swerve, but your point was that you incorrectly believed they didn't investigate child neglect. Why not just accept that?


The question wasn’t whether it “got in the way”, just that the child neglect issue was actively considered, contrary to what you thought.


I haven’t started lying, and don’t intend to. Once again, you clearly have no clue what [iad hominem[/i means. It is nothing to do with real or perceived "jibes”, though goodness knows your posts aren’t short of those. There's nowt wrong with a good jibe, and frankly ridiculing your drivel is also entertaining, though not as funny as the picture I am getting of your cheeks reddening and your saliva spluttering onto your screen.




See, that's what I'm talking about. Debate for 12 year olds. Embarrassingly pathetic.


Oh, grow up, man!


YAY! The penny has finally droipped! Do I get an apology, then?


No, what you actually said was :-

That’s you thinking you're taking the pi*s. that’s you ridiculing the idea that the Portuguese police were considering child neglect. That’s you claiming through your clumsy rhetorical question that they DID NOT LOOK INTO A NEGLECT CHARGE. Sadly turns out that you were 100% wrong.


You really need to calm down. I should also point out that this is illogical, since if on your face there is excrement that I spat out, then I couldn’t at the same time still be full.

Goodness, Princess Diana has a lot to answer for....poor lass.

Because it's a ****ing lie.

DMW made a throwaway line about it being funny that the McCann's weren't charged with child neglect. I argued against a charge considering the fact that they'd lost their daughter. You jumped in with your stupid comment that the (British) police don't have jurisdiction. And you've been digging since then to try and bury that stupid comment.



I've never written anywhere that a neglect charge would not have been considered. I've never *thought* that either, despite what your mind reading skills lead you to believe.



So WTF did you mean by the "struggling for attention" comment? That was clearly a comment aimed *to the person* and not *to the post*.



You honestly think you deserve one?



I never said that they NEVER LOOKED INTO IT. I'm just arguing that a child neglect charge against parents when no one knows where the child is is ridiculous.

For the McCann's to be charged with child neglect, the police would have needed Madeline to be found wandering around lost on her own that night. But with Madeline missing, with the possibility that she was either dead or abducted, it would have been a cruel and nasty waste of policing to charge them with neglect. And it would have also made their case more difficult to prove if the McCann's were suspected of the murder WHICH THE PORTUGUESE POLICE DID ACCUSE THEM OF.



The reason that the excrement is on my face is because you were talking ****. And you're still full of **** because you're a greedy ****er and eat too much.

I think she's proof of mass mind control. Because she was nowhere near as pretty as the world seems to think she was.

True, but she inspired a generation of smart looking lasses, not like the scruffy dross knocking around today.

You sarcastically tried to take the pis* out of me for suggesting it was, which of course amounts to precisely the same thing.


What utter, utter bollox.

I said "Is there a point in there somewhere, struggling for attention?" - this is a question. It presumes you meant to make a point in your post, but that I can't see thae point. It sarcastically asks you to explain what (if any) point you were making. It is thus 100%, clearly, a question aimed at the post you made. How you could think it was aimed at a "person" is a mystery.


With as much respect as I can muster, you extremely clearly implied exactly that when you wrote:-





Ah, vulgar abuse. The last refuge for those soundly whupped in argument.

Bless.

The ONLY reason the issue of whether the PORTUGUESE police considered charging the McCann's for child neglect is being discussed is because YOU made your STUPID comment that "the police don't have jurisdiction in forrin countries".

You know that was a dumb comment, you won't even acknowledge the comment and you are digging and digging to hide that fact.

I don't think the McCann's should have been charged with child neglect. I don't think that a charge of child neglect should ever be made during an ONGOING INVESTIGATION into the disappearance of a child when the facts have not been established. I don't think the way the case was handled by the Portuguese police meant that the McCann's could have been charged, even if they were neglectful, when Madeline was never recovered.

But a charge of child neglect completely contradicts the accusation of the murder of Madeline. The Portuguese police named them as suspects in her murder, they briefed the British press they did it and lead the tabloids to savage them. The McCann's couldn't have neglected Madeline by leaving her in the apartment AND killed her at the same time.

I've never said that the Portuguese police didn't consider charging them with child neglect. I never thought it. And it is BS to say that I did. I've made the point many times, the possible murder charge would take precedence, the possible abduction of the child would be another lead, any possible child neglect charge would need to wait until a proper picture emerged of what happened.

Just thinking about it a little more. As they were considered suspects of Madeline's murder they could have been charged with child neglect, but it would probably have been as a tool to try and make them implicate themselves/each other over the murder. But IMO it would have never been as a standalone child neglect case when the issues were in no way resolved. And I don't think it would have been politically feasible to charge anguished parents when the accusation could be made that they were covering up for their botched recovery by trying to pin it on the parents.



TBH I may have read it wrong. The "struggling for attention" comment I read as you saying that *I* was struggling for attention. That was how I continued to read it until this post. I now accept that the meaning is different when the sentence is taken as a whole.

No, it wasn't. It is a factual statement about the lack of jurisdiction in the matter by police in this country and this "digging" and "hiding" stuff is just weird!


Neither do I. But you're going off the subject again.


The way I read it, the issue of whether to charge them with child neglect can logically only have been considered once the authorities in principle felt that the McCann's account was the most credible. But personally I am of the view that to even consider a charge that they abandoned/neglected their child, in the circumstances set out, would be doomed to failure anyway.


I don't see the connection, though I do see the argument that if you accept they didn't kill their own child, then her disappearance is punishment enough for them.


No it doesn't, I would bet she was, sadly, abducted and killed by someone, just not the McCanns.


Well, we don't need Columbo to figure that, but the point was that all possible charges were in turn considered, including murder, and including abandonment/neglect.


Now you're bullting. You're digging and digging to hide the fact that YOU WROTE:

You cannot escape the fact that this plainly implies you DID think exactly that thought. You're ignoring it in the hope your bluster will smokescreen it, but it won't.


Except it wouldn't have to, as the possibility of a child neglect charge was indeed considered, as I set out.


Er, I think you're getting a bit carried away now.


Fair enough.

If someone had been arguing about the British police charging them with child neglect then your point would have been warranted. As no one had, it was simply a stupid comment. As pretty much anyone reading this thread can see.



You were claiming that I thought the Portuguese police never considered charging them with child neglect. I never wrote that, I never alluded to that, I never thought that. I was just pointing that out.



Which I am in agreement with. Which I was arguing. Until you helpfully chimed in with the fact the British police don't have jurisdiction.



The Portuguese police wrongly jumped to the conclusion that Madeline was dead because of their misreading of DNA evidence, and named the parents as suspects. The Portuguese police then briefed the British press about the fact the McCann's were the murderers. The British tabloid press then did what the British tabloid press does and went to town to destroy them.

Given the fact that the Portuguese police have massively screwed up with that. Given the fact that the British tabloids, having been pushed wrongly into hammering the McCann's, were now likely to be focusing back on Portuguese police very sharply, it would make it almost impossible to charge the McCann's with child neglect, even if they did deserve it (which I don't think they did).



I prefer to believe she is safe and abducted by someone and sold to some loon who really wanted kids, but is otherwise safe and bringing her up well.

The Portuguese police were briefing that the McCann's killed Madeline. Around the same time that you say they were considering charging them with child neglect.



We didn't need Columbo to point out that British police wouldn't be charging the McCann's with child neglect, but you felt it was important to point it out.



There is a missing child. There is a possibly murdered child. The police believed that the McCann's were involved in her murder. By all means consider a possible child neglect case and leave that possible case open should the girl be soon discovered. But a potential child neglect case is of almost complete irrelevance compared to the abduction and possible murder of a child.



Considered because the police should consider each possible outcome. But obviously shelved because of higher priorities, and also IMO, because a child neglect case wasn't supported by the facts.

<resigned sigh>
OK if I have to spell it out for you then so be it.
1. My post was a sarcastic comment, aimed at the apparent misunderstandings being posted about what might/should be charged.
2. Nobody was so arguing. They were suggesting that the Portuguese police should charge the parents with neglect.
3. Anyone who was involved in this discussion seemed to be ignorant of the fact that, in reality, the Portuguese police had already given detailed consideration to such charges, and presumably ruled them out (as none were ever brought).
4. The post mocks that ignorance, since obviously a poster who wasn't ignorant of the fact wouldn't suggest that the [iPortuguese[/i police should pursue a course that they had already pursued and rejected. (They would instead point out that decision and criticise it).
5. Therefore the sarcasm in the post is in the implicit assumption it makes that these posters do know this fact, a simple device used to mock the fact that they do not.


This is getting really tiresome. Your sarcastic comment (which I've quoted several times now) has a clear implication and that won't change however many times you swerve explaining why else you would have posted what you did. Though I'm curious how you pointed out something that you never wrote, alluded to, nor thought. That would be a good trick.


To be precise, around the time that the Supreme Court in Evora said they were.


You know, in an odd way, you almost got the sarcasm, didn't you? A bit more attention and you wouldn't have made quite such a fool of yourself!


See what you're doing? You're now posting on the basis that the police could and did consider all possibilities, including child neglect. As if you knew they had considered child neglect, all along. But you didn't. You had no clue. You believed they hadn't. You believed they thought the McCanns "dun it" and so looked into murder charges, and not neglect. Because you thought looking at possible neglect charges would be illogical.





YOU then spelled out your mistaken belief, I'll quote the full extract, for the avoidance of doubt:

Game, set and match. Though dead horses should not assume they can rest easy.

TBH this is pointless arguing. All the evidence is all in the thread.

You've obviously claimed the position of judge as well as participant.

My judgement is that you tried to make a joke with your British cops don't have jurisdiction comment. It wasn't funny, it was stupid and you got pi55ed off after you were called on it.

But hey, you called dibs on being judge so I've lost.

Indeed, I keep quoting it:



You're not arguing, you are just in denial as to what you meant, but we all know.