h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=madeleine+mccann&word2=princess+diana

I know I keep banging on about the 'doctor' thing. That's because as a profession it is geared towards the care, health and wefare of your fellow human beings. Yes admiittedly some people will go into that profession for all sorts of reasons, not all for the reasons we might hope. But that's what you do all day long. I would make a distinction between GPs and other sorts of doctors, because I think you could still be a brilliant research or hospital doctor, even if you had very little genuine talent or skill about common sense issues involving caring for people.

But I think you do have to be pretty switched on to the most basic common sense issues involving the welfare and health of other human beings as a GP. Maybe I've been fairly lucky in the GPs I've had. But my experience of GPs is of highly skilled and intelligent people in the most basic areas of what human beings need for good health. And you don't usually choose that area of medicine for the prestige and money compared with other areas of medicine. I think it would be quite bizarre for even a poor GP to think it appropriate to leave very children unattended.

Um, no you don't have to be switched on to peoples feelings to be a doctor. You just have to get the grades to become a doctor and a lot of people who can have that level of intelligence can have problems with human interactions in general. This goes for a lot of people of high intelligence. It just seems to be the way the brain is wired.

A lot of people become Dr's for the money. Especially when they get to consultant level etc.

It is a big mistake to put Dr's on some sort of pedestal. I certainly do not in general. There a good ones and bad ones but there is no definite increased level of commons sense etc.

<>

Amen to that. It beggars belief that (in the UK) you have to have a licence to own a dog, but anyone can have children.

Helps to be a Dr to get access to sleeping tablets and know the correct doseage for kids though.

>>
"but it doesn't seem to be based on anything real in terms of children and parenting."

See above.
<< SoRB

The 'above' was alot of stuff that seemed largely unrelated to parenting and children. Yes the bad decisions lead to more bad decisions thing is interesting, but it's pretty abstract. You just don't seem to have any grasp of the realities of parenting and children. Fantasising about what you would do if you ruled the world doesn't mean anything in this situation. Parenting in the real world is complex, far more complex than your analogy can cope with.

>>
"If you want to prosecute every parent who's made a mistake when it comes to the safety and wellbeing of their child, then you'd be prosecuting most parents."

Show me where I mentioned prosecuting anyone? I don't think the McCanns should necessarily be prosecuted for leaving their kids alone. What I do think, however, is that their two remaining children should be placed in responsible institutional care *immediately*, as would likely have already happened if Kate McCann's name was Sharon and she had tattoos.
<<

I think this is an idiocy and it makes me glad you don't rule the world. Taking children from their family and putting them in state care is an extremely damaging thing to do to a child. You have to have really good reasons for doing so i.e. the damage from loss of family has to be outweighed by the damage of leaving the child in the family. Making bad judgement calls about babysitting while on holiday is not a good enough reason on its own. This doesn't mean that nothing should be done of course.


>>"If you want to prosecute every parent who's made a mistake when it comes to the safety and wellbeing of their child, then you'd be prosecuting most parents."

Show me where I mentioned prosecuting anyone?
<<

Whatever. If you want to remove the remaining children of every parent who's made a mistake when it comes to the safety and wellbeing of their child, then you'd be removing alot of children.

>>>
<>

Amen to that. It beggars belief that (in the UK) you have to have a licence to own a dog, but anyone can have children.
<<<

That deserves a thread of its own Imagine - who would make the test, how would it be enforced etc.

Can anyone explain why the car was subjected to forensic tests when it wasn't hired until weeks after the child went missing?

Why would the police do that?

Unless they know something of course.

>>Um, no you don't have to be switched on to peoples feelings to be a doctor.<<



Where did I say that?

>>Um, no you don't have to be switched on to peoples feelings to be a doctor.<<

Here - at least my interpretation - semantics possibly!:But I think you do have to be pretty switched on to the most basic common sense issues involving the welfare and health of other human beings as a GP.

"Can anyone explain why the car was subjected to forensic tests when it wasn't hired until weeks after the child went missing?"

What a startlingly good question, and one I haven't seen asked anywhere else...

SoRB

This post has been removed.

We know that's the focus *now*. I think the thrust of the question was: what made the police do those tests in the first place?

The story makes sense now we know the results of the tests on the car - but why test the car? Looked at from the point of view of the police, you've got to wonder who made the decision to pull that car in, and why...

SoRB

Desperation?

Smokescreen?

Copper's hunch?

To do a debugging?

GB

Aww; it's not the poor ikkle cars fault. Anyway, it is now apparently "in a safe place". Phew. I wonder how it got there? Presumably the hire company are aware of this?

zdt

Presumably the meter is still running...