BS: Child neglect and the law

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:48 PM

Read that and weep

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:46 PM

sounds more like "judgements" to me again!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:44 PM

I have mate, I have

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:37 PM

Then get your facts right!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:36 PM

I am not talking about the Scottish system

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:30 PM

The Scottish Family court is different from that in England and Wales - I worked in the system for 30 years!
A Social Worker may make a "recommendation" but it must meet the agreement of the appointed court officers.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:28 PM

Courts, which in most child related cases are closed courts, only act on the evidence supplied by Social Services, and sometime the police. Neither organisation inspire my confidence.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:27 PM

I do agree with Emma B.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:25 PM

Giok, you are right - not just by social services but also by the forensic service for which I used to work (many years ago). I worked with Ron Outerridge who was in charge of the forensics in the Stefan Kiszko case (but before that case I hasten to add). That was a gross miscarriage of justice - he was "stitched up" (there's no better way to word it) by Chief Superintendent Dick Holland and Ron Outerridge.

Involving social services may not do any good but a lot of people have felt resentful that up until now it appears to have been virtually ignored.

In all child cases justice for the child has to be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:22 PM

I have said it before and I will say it again ......                                                   

SOCIAL WORKERS DO NOT MAKE THE DECISION TO REMOVE CHILDREN FROM PARENTS! - got it????

The legal system of this country (England and Wales) makes that decision made on the evidence available.

I admit freely that sometimes that "evidence" may be the theory of a particular medical so-called "expert" etc and subsequently turn out to be tragically incorrect; unfortunately similar mistakes have been made in other courts and make me relieved we no longer have capital punishment - but - it does not condemn the whole of the justice system!

Bear in mind that the public also "wants it both ways". Social Workers are pilloried if they leave children with neglectful or abusing parents and condemned if they remove them to care (as above)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:16 PM

Social Services don't actually have the power to decide that someone isn't a fit parent. That's a court decision.

Unfortunately it's pretty common for the media to get the facts muddled up and for readers to muddle them still further, till it turns into urban legends.

Social Services screw things up from time to time, that's true enough. What organisation doesn't? What individual doesn't, for that matter? Most of the time they do a pretty good job. I'm sure the same is true of their opposite numbers in Portugal.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:15 PM

I got my news from the BBC... they've been wrong in the past but I tend to trust them.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:07 PM

"I think that one of the most important moves has been the involvement today of the UK Social Services which will reassure many people"

Victoria Kalimbier, Maria Caldwell, etcetera atcetera. Don't mention bloody Social Services in the UK to me.
What about the poor girl who's baby was taken away from her in the delivery room by social services because her partner's child in a previous relationship was diagnosed as suffering from shaken baby syndrome. No charges were brought by the police in that instance, but the social services have decided he is not a suitable parent, and have taken the baby and are seeking to have it adopted.
They do some good things, but they have made some MONSTROUS cock ups in the past, yet seem to be responsible to nobody!
What good they are going to do in this instance god only knows.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM

Only time will tell if the parents are in any way involved - nobody knows that except them.

I think that one of the most important moves has been the involvement today of the UK Social Services which will reassure many people. One of the facts that we do know is that irresponsible parenting was involved in this disappearance and the professionals do have a responsibility to the child to look into this.

The whole thing is a mess and seems to be getting worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 03:55 PM

"Latest news" doesn't always mean that, as opposed to rumours. Stories that I've read have been pretty clear that there is no question of traces of blood in that car, merely DNS traces which might have been those of Madeleine, and which could have been deposited from a toy or garment.

Of course perhaps those stories are wrong too. My point is, in the absence of actual facts, as opposed to rumours, it's premature, pointless, and rather sick to go building up speculative bonfires of hate.

And if anyone is thinking, "well the police don't go naming innocent mothers as suspects", it's as well remembering the cases of the late Sally Clark and Angela Cannings who were tried and convicted and jailed for the murder of their children - only for it turn out subsequently that the "scientific" evidence and testimony on which they were convicted was complete rubbish.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 02:50 PM

The latest news from Portugal matches the DNA of the blood in the car to that of Madeleine, the car not hired until 25 days after her disappearance.

Can anyone else hear backpedalling?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 03:04 PM

btw, amongst some of the more distasteful definitions of a "ghoul" is "a creature who preys on children"

I'm not sure who the real ghouls are here... . .

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 02:31 PM

Leave No Stone Unturned is a registered Limited Company (Registration number 6248215) registered office -
PO Box 53133 London E18 2YR. Auditors: Haysmacintyre, Fairfax House, 15 Fulwood Place, London, WC1V 6AY.

and NOT a charitable trust

1.1 The full objects of the Fund are:


1.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;


1.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and


1.1.3 To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

AND.............note.........
1.2 IF the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

The directors of the company are Peter Hubner, Brian Kennedy, John McCann, Esther McVey, Doug Skehan and Philip Tomlinson. They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience. An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability. This should enable the Directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day-to-day operations of the Fund.

I'm sure it SHOULD be possible to find out exactly how much and what the money has been spent on so far if it is as "transparent" as it claims; no doubt a great deal has gone in the "personal expenses" under 1.1.3. some of which have been referred to elsewhere in the thread.

However a quote from Gerry McCann seems that there is thankfully for the well meaning contributors some limit on the use of the capital sum at least!

"It seems like a disaster that we've got this huge donated fund and now we're not allowed to use it for legal costs because we're under suspicion,"

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 01:59 PM

Perhaps someone earns a hefty fee for "managing" the fund?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 01:40 PM

Unfortunately for us in the UK we are going to continue to be bombarded with all of this.

I've just been watching the news where a relative of the family has said that because the child has not yet been found the fund raising will have to continue.

The details of the fund state that this money will only be used to help other children once this particular child has been found alive. I really am not clear why such an immense amount of money is needed.

It is not surprising that some people find the whole thing distasteful.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 12:56 PM

I disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 12:54 PM

Judging on the basis of ignorance is different from judging on the basis of direct observation. Hence "ghouls". Very probably not in life in general, but in relation to some of the posts in this thread it seems justified enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:53 AM

Isn't that what the police are trying to do?
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:47 AM

Yup, and that's what we should all be worried about, not our opinions as to why it happened, or what happened, or who's fault it is.
G.

No, it isn't. If we don't know who, we aren't going to know how or anything else at this point. The child is gone. Now find the culprit.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:36 AM

FACT = Ten doctors and their wives went on a holiday as a group and brought their children.

FACT = More than one of these couples left their children under the age of five alone on more than one occasion while they drank and partied into the small hours of the morning in a bar.

FACT = Not one of the other 18 adults (all close friends) remained in Portugal to assist in the search or gave a character reference as to the behaviour of the McCann's. In fact all returned to England and Wales on their scheduled flights without saying a word.

FACT = Kate McCann permitted two cleaners into the apartment before the police arrived and they have confirmed the room in which the children slept was clinically clean.

FACT = Police noted the McCann's twins were difficult to waken.

FACT = The McCann's both returned to Britain to attend a family christening on a day of one the most intensive searches for the child.

FACT = Kate McCann employed the services of both a local beautician and hair stylist throughout her agonising stay in Portugal.

FACT = If a single mother from Bolton had left her child alone and bought a bottle of wine in Asda and popped into a friends house and drank it and on her return found her child was missing there would be a public outcry and rightly so.


This case stank for the first day. The general public were asked to fund their stay in Portugal despite the McCann's joint annual income of 192,000 pounds. They courted the media and celebrities and encouraged thousands of people throughout Europe to search for their child. Am I angry ? Your bloody right I am.

God forbid if your child is abducted in the future, you may find public support and understanding is a little thin on the ground due to the events surrounding this particular case.

I repeat, One of the McCann's knows what happened that poor child which makes them both guilty of the crime. I suspect more than one of the children in that group were given sedation by a parent. Thus the wall of silence by the other members of the group.

As to the comments of support and understanding for the McCann's above, I wait with anticipation to read the comments from the same posters within the next 14 days or so. One thing the British public do not like is being taken for a ride.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 10:36 AM

Yup, and that's what we should all be worried about, not our opinions as to why it happened, or what happened, or who's fault it is.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 10:34 AM

Yes, hypothesis and supposition--and a missing child.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 10:19 AM

I am not in any way involved with anybody in this case SRS. Just feel that there's an awful lot of judgemental posts on the basis of not enough information.
It's all hypothesis and supposition.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 10:13 AM

I have the feeling John/Giok and Kevin protest too much. They're judging those who would discuss the topic as ghoulish or knee-jerk reactionary, when most of the posts here have been parental scolds and well-reasoned. It begs the question--do either of you see one of these doctors professionally or socially? Is there something more behind your defensive postures? The wild fund-raising and headline support for the parents sounded so bizarre. You can't judge the reader for picking up on the carnivalesque nature of the show.

I think Victor may have pulled a very good answer out of the muddle that is the news about this story. It's even easy to visualize how perhaps the plan was to give the children something to sleep and each parent, independent of the other, gave a dose, accidentally overdosing. I'm not throwing this out as the next big headline, I'm just saying it is actually an understandable situation, but it isn't acceptable to drug kids to sleep, so it still isn't right, ethically, if not wrong legally.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 06:44 AM

I have been on the end of media frenzy like that and it's scary. The media is like the old saying about fire.
It's a good servant, but a bad master.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 06:35 AM

The trouble is that the whole world has been subjected to this high profile campaign, fund raising, courting of the media, involvement of celebrities, politicians and the Pope, biased reporting, criticism of the police etc.

It may have been better at the start to have stood back and let the professionals do their job unhindered. The many "sightings" have wasted a lot of police time. Evidence was destroyed and this may or may not have been accidental - nobody knows that. These are facts not judgements.

Many people have been made to look "fools".

Some parents have resented the statements that we all leave young children alone because the fact is that the majority of parents do not do that.

It really is not surprising that people are fed up with it all and feel that they have to say something if it is only to defend the majority of parents and professional people trying to do a job and trying to find the truth.

The suggesting of police framing amd planting evidence is ridiculous (though not impossible) - it is hard to see the Portuguese police, the British police and the British forensic science service all conspiring to set up the parents; they just are not important enough for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 06:24 AM

Labelling someone as "responsible and loving" is in fact a "judgement" Giok in the meaning of an opinion, faculty of mental perception etc obviously based on feelings of sympathy rather than any objective evidence or knowledge of the parents characters.

Describing their ACTIONS as irresponsible is not "judging" the parents. As has been said by several people, many parents have found themselves in situations where through necessity, lack of support or financial difficulties etc they have been required to leave their children alone for short periods, I would be the last person to censure people in these circumstances. This however was not the case in this instance where several friends and a baby-sitting service were available.

I reserve the "right" to comment on the facts as we know them without being labelled ghoulish ....and worse!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 06:08 AM

Support and condemnation are two different things. We can all do either, but I think the judgements should be made after the facts are known, and not now.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 07:28 PM

judgements" that the McCanns were "responsible and loving parents" have already been posted here by at least one person who now exhorts others to refrain from a contrary opinion based on the "facts" that the children were left unattended on several occasions rather than purely subjective sympathy.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 07:24 PM

If people are endlessly scolded for expressing judgement, even in cases that involve the probable death of a child, then more and more marginal cases will be allowed to happen. Public disapproval is the only thing just about that keeps things like this from happening, or all sorts more parents might be tempted to take similar risks. There are times to be quite judgemental, and leaving not just a four year old, but apparently twin two?? year=olds at night..they could have drowned in the toilet, choked on cords, jumped on the beds and broken lamps and been cut or started a fire. Twins could have taken pillows and smothered someone. They all could have wandered down to the ocean if was near..come on..except now there is speculation they were given "sleeping aids". mg

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 07:04 PM

Precisely. No judgement

Practice as you preach.

We should not be subjected to your "judgement" that people are "ghouls".

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 07:04 PM

Listen, everyone is fully entitled to voice their opinion.

I am a parent and Yes I do have many concerns over this case.

We had a meningitis scare with one of our kids some years back and my wife and I were both physically sick with worry and could barely find the strength to talk to the medical staff let alone host daily coffee mornings with the press. My wife certainly didn't have will to get her highlights done.

The other nine couples who went on holidays with the McCann family all headed home on their scheduled flights in May. Would you not have expected these close friends to stay and help with the search ?

The lady from northern Portugal who stayed in the apartment next to the McCann's said the little girl cried most nights to 12.30am.

Portuguese police said their other children were difficult to arouse from their sleep the next morning. Possibly the children were given something to help them sleep ?

Why did Mrs, McCann in her upset state allow two cleaners into a possible crime scene before the police visit ?
Anytime I ever stayed in an apartment I got towels and possibly the floor brushed by one cleaner. Dr.McCann had worked in forensic medicine for two years, she should have known the meaning of the term "crime scene".


My fear is Mrs. McCann could self harm before justice can be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 06:30 PM

Precisely. No judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 05:54 PM

Also, I do feel that if no judgement should made of the parents then equally no judgement should be made of the police who have been accused of planting evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 05:51 PM

I haven't seen any comments on this forum that suggest a lynch mob.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 05:48 PM

I am refraining from comment, which is what I think everybody should do, instead of standing in judgement, while displaying all the loveable aspects of a lynch mob.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 05:34 PM

You seem to think you know something, and are willing to spout your 'theories' all over the [place.

I haven't spouted any theories and I have just as much right to comment as you.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 05:22 PM

I was sorry when the first thread on this issue was deleted. I sincerely believe that some of the issues raised deserve informed debate: the treatment by the UK press has certainly been very biased and parents in other circumstances would have been villified by the same journalists who pilloried the Portugese police and published very condemning details about the first suspect likening him to the convicted child murderer Ian Huntley.
The reporting still leaves much to be desired, the "family friend" Clarence Mitchell
much quoted is, as has been noted, a professional journalist well skilled in the art of "spin" who is in fact employed to "assist" the family and had no previous knowledge of them.
I hope that when the parents return to the UK, as now that they are "suspects" too they have said they wish to do, that the two younger children will be offered protection under the laws of this country.

I feel that I have as much "right" to comment on an obvious case of neglect as others have to express their views and would take the opportunity to second the sentiment expressed earlier that our sympathy should be for the child victim in such situations.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 05:01 PM

I think ghouls is precisely the right word.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 04:48 PM

"I get fed up when people condemn those that criticise the parents. Their family and friends insist that they are innocent. How do they know?"
You seem to think you know something, and are willing to spout your 'theories' all over the [place.
What right do you have to make any comments whatsoever on this case?
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 04:41 PM

The McCanns have brought this on themselves - they have made their bed and now they must lie in it.

Innocent or guilty, I think a 2 year sentence would be fair for just leaving the children alone, never mind anything else.

Not only was the flat cleaned the following morning (unbelievable), but every man and his dog was allowed in there the night Madeleine disappeared to "look for her". Then the parents were offended because the police said that this had destroyed evidence. The Portuguese police may not be the best in the world but they are trying to do a job and the parents have not made that job easy for them. Some people forget that the child is the victim here; sometimes she just seems to get forgotten and it all seems to be about the parents.

I get fed up when people condemn those that criticise the parents. Their family and friends insist that they are innocent. How do they know?

I'm just glad I haven't contributed to the fund.

I read that Gordon Brown had been regularly ringing them at first - doesn't he have a country to run?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: SINSULL
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 01:26 PM

Can't help but think of the Australian woman whose baby was eaten by dingos. She was crucified in the Press because she calmly accepted the baby's death as the will of god.

After having her other children taken from her and being convicted and sent to prison, she was vindicated when the baby's clothing was found and in fact dingos had eaten the child.

You can not expect unbiased reporting from people trying to sell papers. You can not expect the police to divulge all they know and destroy their case. Why is this so important to you? Children are kidnapped every day and the press ignores the story. Why this one? Because as with Jon Benet, the story sells papers.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 11:19 AM

Maybe worth returning to this thread.
Would anyone like to hold their hands up?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jeanie
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 09:57 AM

I would commend to everyone who is interested in following the history and continuing unfolding of the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to visit the discussion board that "Canadienne" posted at the start of this thread: http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=31

In my opinion, the UK has seen an unprecedented amount of one-sided reporting in the media, promoted by media professionals employed by the McCann "campaign" since May 3rd, and the reporting of the events over the past 2 days has shown precious little change in this.

The investigative journalism and balanced debate which has been so sadly lacking in what has been reported in the UK media, has been carried out and posted on that forum. Where other forums in the UK and news websites which have space for readers' comments, have only published comments in favour of the McCanns and their fundraising campaign etc., the Mirror forum has continued to allow freedom of speech.

I am so glad to have been pointed in the direction of that forum by this Mudcat thread, as it has opened my eyes to what I have been reading and hearing in the UK media. For instance: Clarence Mitchell who is quoted as being a "family friend" in the article posted above by SRS is far more than that. His background and current job are well worth researching. Likewise, the background and connections of "family friend" John Corner. It is thanks to research by posters on the Mirror forum, for instance, that it came to light to the wider general public that the distance from the holiday apartment to the Tapas Bar where the family was dining that night was considerably further away than "just like sitting in your back garden", as we were (and still are) informed in the UK press.

This case has been handled so differently by the UK media than any other (even similar ones) that I have ever come across. It is not over yet. People are innocent until proven guilty, but I feel that if there is to be any reporting or discussion in the media at all, it must be balanced and not one-sided.

Despite what we are now hearing and the scenario now being presented to us, Madeleine may still be alive. I pray so, and I pray that the *truth* will out, and soon.

- jeanie

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: SINSULL
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 08:30 AM

The woman who accidentally left her baby in the van is not the first to do it. She was supposed to pick up donuts for a meeting, stop at the sitter's house to drop off the baby and then go to work - she is principal of a local school.

The baby fell asleep in the back seat and she completely forgot her. Got the donutsand went to work. She discovered the baby when she came out of work.

I pity her. What a disaster! Knowing how dull I am in the AM I can understand how it could happen. The police chief felt she had suffered enough BUT he also said that there was no indication of criminal intent. It was a horrible accident.

One of the AM news shows interviewed another couple who made the same mistake and lost a child. I remember a family from Long Island who stopped by the side of the LIE and eveeryone got out. Their baby, seat and all, was placed on the roof of the car. When they got back in, no one noticed the baby was missing and off they drove. When they arrived at their destination, PANIC!

Fortunately, the weather was mild and a driver saw what looked like a perfectly good baby seat on the side of the road so he stopped. It ended well for them