Its a possibility. And if it does, d'yu think it is pro-McCann or anti-McCann?
Methinks it would be anti-McCann for that would give it ample justification for its crime. It must think its done a great job.
Just imagine guys (& one venerable duck...), it saved little Madeleine from living with such irresponsible, selfish & frivolous
parents. They neglected her so they don't deserve her. Look, (it must be thinking to itself) even intellectuals on YA have noticed how Kate is tying ribbons in her "newly highlighted" (grrrrrrrrr) hair & "rolling her eyes" (grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr) and how Gerry is so cold & hard & smug (GRRRRRRRR) & how he doesn't have blood but a deep dark sludge (GRRRRRRR) in his heart. It must be quite content in the fact that it is not alone but in good company.
In case its too much to imagine such evil scum reading all our little posts, maybe there are other potential abductors eyeing their neighbours little children, finding fault with their parental skills & hatching evil plots to abduct them & save them from such parents.
My point is get beyond Kate & Gerry leaving their babies unattended; they will be judged by law for it & they are being judged by life as it is. Have more faith in the Brit legal system. Don't cut them down for their temperaments & subsequent course of actions.
You are helping abductors rationalise their behavior. Other little children may pay heavily for your petty spite.
2007-06-07
21:42:46
·
6 answers
·
asked by
Faith
6
in
News & Events
➔ Current Events
DaveS:No, of course not, all kidnappings would not stop, even if you & yours stopped ranting. The point i'm struggling to make is to please try & distinguish between their fault (leaving the babies alone) & their consequent behaviour. Hound them for their fault/crime in leaving their babies alone & do whatever you have to bring them to book...but going tangent on their blood consistency trivialises the issue & makes for a witchhunt that other gossipmongers just thrive on. Don't...its not fair.
2007-06-07
22:23:44 ·
update #1