• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
A few fuzzy distinctions:-

'Going out on the piss' generally implies that the primary object of the evening is to get drunk; food is incidental—if present, it is often being taken on as 'ballast' to cushion the blow of the alcohol (because getting hammered and passing out after forty minutes is not nearly as enjoyable as drawing the experience out over multiple hours).

BUT middle-class couples on a European holiday would be overwhelmingly likely to eat with wine because eating with wine is much more conventional on the continent.

'Going out on the piss' feels class-based to me and doesn't seem a comfortable fit for two middle-classed doctors; even if they were doing this, they would probably not have used or thought of the term to describe their evening's aim.

In my view you are correct to object here. 'Going out on the piss' is inaccurate and is being used—consciously or not—to paint the McCanns as irresponsible parents.
Middle class Brits drink more than working class Brits. It may be wine and Prosecco instead of lager but it’s still going out on the piss however they think of themselves.
 
Middle class Brits drink more than working class Brits. It may be wine and Prosecco instead of lager but it’s still going out on the piss however they think of themselves.

I accepted this same point in my post.

Do we have any indication of how much was drunk and by whom?

I've not seen any indication that the parents' aim was to 'get drunk', which is certainly the meaning of the term.

If a working class man met his mates for a two or three pints in the pub after work, this would not be described as 'going out on the piss' either.
 
I think it was much more prevalent than people realise. My Mum was evacuated during the war to a small village in Norfolk. She told me that a man used to wait for her outside school and try to give her small presents like pencils, sweets etc. She told the farmers wife where she was staying and she said "oh, that would be old XX. We have to keep an eye on him. Don't worry I will take care of it". The local bobby got involved and she was never approached again. I wonder how many of these types of incidents were 'local' and dealt with locally?
That's a good point- such situations were dealt with. Now they are splashed all over the Sun and it's ilk and soshul meedya.
 
Middle class Brits drink more than working class Brits. It may be wine and Prosecco instead of lager but it’s still going out on the piss however they think of themselves.

l’ve done a few minutes’ Googling, and l can’t find any evidence to support that contention.

The strongest predictor of consumed volume and binge drinking frequency was lower educational attainment: those whose highest qualification was an A-level (i.e. college/high school qualification) drank substantially more on a typical day (β = 0.28, 95%CI 0.25 to 0.31) and had a higher weekly unit intake (β = 3.55, 95%CI 3.04 to 4.05) than those with a university qualification. They also reported a higher frequency of binge drinking (β = 0.11, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.14).”

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0209442

Confusion may arise because it seems that better-off Brits drink more frequently, i.e. on more occasions; this doesn’t necessarily translate into drinking more, though.

maximus “10 units per week, doc, honest!” otter
 
Last edited:
l’ve done a few minutes’ Googling, and l can’t find any evidence to support that contention.

“The strongest predictor of consumed volume and binge drinking frequency was lower educational attainment: those whose highest qualification was an A-level (i.e. college/high school qualification) drank substantially more on a typical day (β = 0.28, 95%CI 0.25 to 0.31) and had a higher weekly unit intake (β = 3.55, 95%CI 3.04 to 4.05) than those with a university qualification. They also reported a higher frequency of binge drinking (β = 0.11, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.14).”

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0209442

Confusion may arise because it seems that better-off Brits drink more frequently, i.e. on more occasions; this doesn’t necessarily translate into drinking more, though.

maximus “10 units per week, doc, honest!” otter
A meal without wine is breakfast.
 
Children these days are warned about everything to the extent that they are often afraid to do normal things for fear of blowing themselves up/burning themselves etc. An enormous number go to university unable to cook a meal, work a washing machine or change a duvet cover, because they've either been warned off even trying or cossetted out of needing to.

I knew my children would come to appreciate my 'hands off' style of parenting when they left home - and I was right!
Talking of burning it's probably 10 years ago that Ms P heard horrendous screaming from neighbour's house. Rushed round to find 7 year old girl, left on her own, had tipped boiling water all over the front of her body. Ms P stripped her clothes off and put her under a cold shower. She was lucky that no skin came off. Nothing ever came of the incident. By contrast my 2 year old managed to tip very hot coffee on his chest from a cup which had just been put down by a neighbour. Skin began to peel so his mother rushed him to hospital where he was treated immediately. Social worker was on the doorstep the following day. Neighbour was devastated for weeks.
Just shows how children are vulnerable whether alone or not and the response to such incidents varies considerably over time.
 
Middle class Brits drink more than working class Brits. It may be wine and Prosecco instead of lager but it’s still going out on the piss however they think of themselves.
I think middle class Brits talk about drinking more than working class Brits. Working class Brits just do it, they don't feel the need to spend half a working day chatting about going for a cheeky red, or what's better Sauvignon or Pinot.
 
l’ve done a few minutes’ Googling, and l can’t find any evidence to support that contention.

“The strongest predictor of consumed volume and binge drinking frequency was lower educational attainment: those whose highest qualification was an A-level (i.e. college/high school qualification) drank substantially more on a typical day (β = 0.28, 95%CI 0.25 to 0.31) and had a higher weekly unit intake (β = 3.55, 95%CI 3.04 to 4.05) than those with a university qualification. They also reported a higher frequency of binge drinking (β = 0.11, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.14).”

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0209442

Confusion may arise because it seems that better-off Brits drink more frequently, i.e. on more occasions; this doesn’t necessarily translate into drinking more, though.

maximus “10 units per week, doc, honest!” otter
I'm unconvinced by these surveys. Surveying 57000 people out of a population of 62 million is hardly conclusive. I suspect there is a certain amount of bravado (oh yes I get p*ssed every night type) and evasiveness in responses. Every really bad p*ss head I've known has been intelligent and highly qualified. Not in itself proof of anything of course. I wonder what the figures would be during and post lock down?
 
I'm unconvinced by these surveys. Surveying 57000 people out of a population of 62 million is hardly conclusive. I suspect there is a certain amount of bravado (oh yes I get p*ssed every night type) and evasiveness in responses. Every really bad p*ss head I've known has been intelligent and highly qualified. Not in itself proof of anything of course. I wonder what the figures would be during and post lock down?
This is, of course, the thing. Drinkers are self-reported. I know many alcoholics who would never call themselves such, they are professional people with good jobs, who don't drink every day. When they do drink, however, they think nothing of a couple of bottles of wine to themselves. I'm on here somewhere talking about reporting a guy for driving himself to our shop for more vodka, so drunk that he tried to pay by pressing his debit card against a box of Weetabix...
 
I think there are rather a lot of sweeping generalisations going on re drinking. 'Out on the piss' to me implies what used to be more politely known as a pub crawl. That is, going out with the deliberate intention of consuming large quantities of alcohol as the main part of the entertainment.

I don't think that is a reasonable representation of what went on in this case. Or if it is, then some evidence of quantities consumed etc. would be nice. In fact, the McCann's behaviour would still be irresponsible even if they drank nothing but mineral water.

Even in the anecdotes we've had about holiday camps, there was some sort of warden system in operation to listen out for crying babies etc. I can't recall the frequency that they said they went and checked, but with children that young a lot of bad things can happen in half an hour.

Edit: By 'irresponsible' I mean 'Irresponsible by that absolute standard by which courts and social workers normally operate'. Most of us parents will have done something as irresponsible at some point or other.
 
Last edited:
When I was primary school age (10 or younger) my dad and step mum regularly left me in the house at night with a baby/toddler (2 or under) while they walked to the local pub about 10 minutes' walk away.

They weren't "on the piss" but they had no system in place for checking on the kids. There were no mobiles, no web cams, no Bluetooth baby monitors: this was the early 1970s.

It seemed perfectly normal at the time. They were not brilliant parents but they were basically a decent working class couple.

Decades later, I have a grandchild who is under 3, and whom I cherish. He often stays over with me and my wife.

If he is asleep in his bedroom and we are downstairs busy or watching TV, it is not inconceivable that someone could sneak in. But what if we were sitting on the back patio? And then what if we wandered down the garden? We could be briefly out of earshot as well as line of sight.

The risk is tiny but cannot be completely overlooked. I personally would draw the line at leaving the premises. However, what if there was only one of us in, and the neighbour knocked on the door asking for help? Would I refuse, or would I risk nipping out for 5 minutes?

It is these tiny increments that add up. If I assume that the McCanns were not involved in the disappearance, I do not feel judgemental about them making a bad decision.

If the kids were in a locked room in a place where the parents felt secure, and the parents were checking periodically, then that was, with hindsight, a bad decision. However, I have no doubt that countless other parents on holiday have made similar decisions and got away with it. Abductions, assaults, and murders of children by strangers are thankfully extremely rare.

I followed this case closely for a while after the disappearance. At the time, I was working in fraud investigation, and my "spider sense" told me there was something "wrong" about the parents' reaction. However, we don't convict people on spider sense, gut feeling, or something not seeming right. Suffice to say that I confidently and correctly predicted the parents being treated as formal suspects.

The bit that struck me as really strange was leaving the area to visit the Pope. However, I don't do religion, and am in no position to judge the behaviour of a true believer, however strange and inconsistent it seems to me.
 
Last edited:
l’ve done a few minutes’ Googling, and l can’t find any evidence to support that contention.

The strongest predictor of consumed volume and binge drinking frequency was lower educational attainment: those whose highest qualification was an A-level (i.e. college/high school qualification) drank substantially more on a typical day (β = 0.28, 95%CI 0.25 to 0.31) and had a higher weekly unit intake (β = 3.55, 95%CI 3.04 to 4.05) than those with a university qualification. They also reported a higher frequency of binge drinking (β = 0.11, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.14).”

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0209442

Confusion may arise because it seems that better-off Brits drink more frequently, i.e. on more occasions; this doesn’t necessarily translate into drinking more, though.

maximus “10 units per week, doc, honest!” otter
Not so sure, plenty of highly reputable sources say they do drink more - period.

Highly over simplified, more money = more booze and less repercussions.

https://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b312.full

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ume-more-drugs-and-alcohol-than-poorer-people ( references in article)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4872618/
 
I do have to point out that it won't have been 'the same people', unless they were working 24 hour shifts. Daytime daycare would likely have different staff to the evening babysitting crew. Although that doesn't explain why really why they didn't use them.
Not 24 hour though - I was thinking about all evening, say upto around midnight?

Dunno how accurate this is, but I recall, at the time, someone I knew on a forum who had just a couple weeks earlier got back from a holiday at the same resort, saying similar. (In fact the person I remember, posted that it seemed unaccountable that anyone there would leave kids in a flat as the culture was very much, you ate in restaurants or bars in the evening with your kids with you - not like the UK where you're glared at for having kids in tow at an eatery). This person, (he names himself in the piece) who claims to have been there a week before, says there was a "baby listening" service advertised but not currently up and running, however daytime day-care staff were used at night:

The McCanns’ choice to leave their children at the flat and make regular checks is surprising given the alternatives. In their defence, they may have been expecting, as advertised in Mark Warner brochures, a ‘listening service’. Staff told us that the service had been discontinued because the apartments were too spread out. The resort, however, offered a baby-sitting service for 15 euros (£10) an hour, which was staffed by a member of the daytime nursery teams, or a ‘dining out club’. This involved parents dropping off children at the crèche where they would be supervised watching videos until they went to sleep. Parents would then return before 11.30 to scoop up their sleepy offspring.
 
Last edited:
Not 24 hour though - I was thinking about all evening, say upto around midnight?

Dunno how accurate this is, but I recall, at the time, someone I knew on a forum who had just a couple weeks earlier got back from a holiday at the same resort, saying similar. (In fact the person I remember, posted that it seemed unaccountable that anyone there would leave kids in a flat as the culture was very much, you ate in restaurants or bars in the evening with your kids with you - not like the UK where you're glared at for having kids in tow at an eatery). This person, (he names himself in the piece) who claims to have been there a week before, says there was a "baby listening" service advertised but not currently up and running, however daytime day-care staff were used at night:
That's interesting. I as a parent would have had difficulty with that 'let them fall asleep at the creche then pick them up', having a hyperactive child who would sleep for ten minutes and then be awake for hours and hours. Which is not what you'd want in a tiny flat with no TV to keep them amused and one parent needing to stay awake with them, other children and parents who want to sleep.

I wonder if Maddie's reported problems with sleeping might have coloured their view of such a service?
 
Yes! Children should be encouraged to develop their skills - especially social cues, critical thinking, and when they think someone is off and makes them uneasy.
Absolutely agree I felt far safer with other kids, though I doubt they could have done much had I been shoved in a van or whatever. In this case was Maddie expected to be responsible to any degree for her younger siblings? Seems a bit unreasonable.

Also I wonder about a child abductor frequenting a location where there was childcare available and kids were likely to be monitored. Wouldn't an isolated caravan site or holiday villa offer more opportunities?
 
Absolutely agree I felt far safer with other kids, though I doubt they could have done much had I been shoved in a van or whatever. In this case was Maddie expected to be responsible to any degree for her younger siblings? Seems a bit unreasonable.

Also I wonder about a child abductor frequenting a location where there was childcare available and kids were likely to be monitored. Wouldn't an isolated caravan site or holiday villa offer more opportunities?
Perhaps I was wrong, but I thought that leaving children unattended in unlocked apartments was an established tradition at that resort. If so, that would be very attractive to any abductor.

... I wonder if anyone now leaves their children unattended in the unlocked apartments at that resort?
 
Perhaps I was wrong, but I thought that leaving children unattended in unlocked apartments was an established tradition at that resort. If so, that would be very attractive to any abductor.

... I wonder if anyone now leaves their children unattended in the unlocked apartments at that resort?
But even if the abductor knew that children were being left unattended, they would have to know that the door was unlocked and that there wasn't an adult or older child in there with them at the moment they chose to 'drop by'.
 
They could have been tipped of by a member of staff who could
have checked on what was going on under the guise of going
about their duties if challenged.
:omr:
 
There are endless possible conjectures because we, the public, don't have the details. What I have noticed from this thread is how easily some people assume the parents were somehow not just innocent but with poor judgement: they were bad, lazy, etc. Or perhaps conveniently?

It is so tempting to get angry at people we read about in the news, and then feel virtuous in blaming that person. This train of thought seems to me to evolve into something psychologically nasty. I am often tempted into this deplorable mental pit by reading about very rich people behaving badly. Others with their favorite conspiracy theories.
 
They could have been tipped of by a member of staff who could
have checked on what was going on under the guise of going
about their duties if challenged.
:omr:

This just adds another tier of implausibility. Now, instead of just one (vanishingly rare paedo abductor), we have two, one of whom just happens to work at the right place and on the right shift.

I’m going to say no.

maximus otter
 
They could have been tipped of by a member of staff who could
have checked on what was going on under the guise of going
about their duties if challenged.
:omr:
But again, that member of staff could have checked what was going on, but by the time they've 'tipped off' their mate, someone's gone back to the room or locked the door....or the member of staff realised the door was unlocked, put their head round and saw children asleep but didn't see the adult who was in the toilet or shower or out on the balcony....

I'd think this was vanishingly unlikely.
 
There are endless possible conjectures because we, the public, don't have the details. What I have noticed from this thread is how easily some people assume the parents were somehow not just innocent but with poor judgement: they were bad, lazy, etc. Or perhaps conveniently?

It is so tempting to get angry at people we read about in the news, and then feel virtuous in blaming that person. This train of thought seems to me to evolve into something psychologically nasty. I am often tempted into this deplorable mental pit by reading about very rich people behaving badly. Others with their favorite conspiracy theories.
Yes much easier than accepting that we just don't know and are unlikely to have the means to find out, because even in the 21st century we can't control everything. A hundred years ago "shit happens" was a perfectly acceptable explanation.
 
Back
Top