BS: Child neglect and the law

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 10:37 AM

I think OJ killed his wife!
Does that answer your question Bruce :)
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 10:57 AM

Peace, Just heard on the radio this afternoon the head of the Portuguese police federation Carlos Anjos, (think that's the correct spelling) slammed Kate and Gerry McCann accusing them of hampering the investigation into their daughter's disappearance.

He said there was no point in scheduling other interrogations as Kate and Gerry have already said they will refuse to speak as they are entitled to by law.

He added, "Madeleine's parents attitude does not facilitate or help our investigation".

Doubt there will be a part two to this thread, the Mudcat law lords wouldn't permit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 04:37 PM

You do appear a bit at sea about how the Mudcat operates, Victor...

"Guilty until proved innocent" - true enough that is an opinion.    I can think of a number of opinions which deserve to be set alongside it...

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 05:13 PM

I guess as a joe clone I must be one of the Mudcat law lords. Never been called that before.

I would suggest that the personal sniping stop. Take it to PMs if you must.

Thanks,

kat - Law Lordess:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 05:30 PM

Gag me with a fuckin' spoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 05:55 PM

I put a simple question earlier to the Tapas Bar two, and never got an answer.

I repeat, have you ever voiced your opinion on any thread on this site ?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:16 PM

I think you'll find a thread where they were staunch defenders of Gary Glitter when he was accused but not convicted.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:26 PM

Now COME ON COME ON heric, did they actually say DO YOU WANT TO BE IN MY GANG ? which one said DO YOU WANNA TOUCH ? or was it OH YES YOUR BEAUTIFUL ? well maybe they had A LITLLE BOOGIE WOOGIE in the back of their mind.

Well possibly someone wished he would REMEMBER ME THIS WAY.
possibly your were nicer about it than they are to me ?
signed ALWAYS YOURS.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:42 PM

Check your facts is a good principle in any kind of discussion. And don't go beyond them in any assertion, that is another.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 09:21 PM

lol

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 02:50 AM

The trouble is that even when some people state FACTS, if those facts are the ones that others don't wish to consider then the tone from some is not very pleasant.

I, for one, am not keen on this idea that people might send each other "sniping" PMs. The only PMs that I have ever had have all been really nice and I would like to keep it that way, for myself and others.

Perhaps, if we could all respect each others opinion and maybe start fresh from this point, or have another break like Peace suggested before.

I'm going to have a natural break anyway because I'm off to the Otley festival today. My husband is playing in one of the pubs there this afternoon.

Have a good day everyone and I mean that.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 03:49 AM

The FACT is, and I posted this WAY up at the beginning and again further down....

There is no law in England that say you must never leave your child alone - there are only guidelines and advice.

There is also no such thing as a 'child friendly country'. There are restaurants where you can take children to eat all over the world, where you can have a good time every night if you want. I took my own child to many restaurants in Great Britain and had a good time.

There are laws about giving alcohol to children; laws about being drunk in charge of a child under 7; laws about who can work with children; laws about where children can be taken; laws concerning children about posting on the Internet. But there are only recommendations about leaving children alone, except in two American States. If there are UK laws, I'd be interested to see where they are publicised, because I've looked for days and not found any.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,concerned
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 04:31 AM

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/helpandadvice/parentsandcarers/homealone/homealone_wda35965.html
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1762734.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 04:36 AM

Yep.. it may be an offence, but it's not illegal.

Saying 'fuck' in public is offensive, but not illegal.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 08:24 AM

Not sure.

http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=221,196332&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 08:35 AM

Try reading the link you sent. IT IS NOT A LAW, IT IS A GUIDELINE!

"The NSPCC have issued guidelines advising that children under the age of 13 should not be left alone. While this recommendation does not have the force of law, it is suggested as good practice. Children under this age are not mature or responsible enough to be left alone, maybe particularly so if they are physically disabled or have a learning disability."

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 08:59 AM

Get a grip Liz....What kind of idiots leave very young children asleep in a strange room and a strange country with the door open.

Young children should never be left alone in a strange place, but if they are, tyhe most likely disaster is for them to waken, open the door and go looking for mum.

If it's not a crime it fuckin' well should be....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 09:40 AM

...with the door open...

Yet again, jumping ahead of what is actually known for sure. What Mr McCann has said is that they had intended to lock and close the door, and thought they had. When he went back to check he found the door ajar, and assumed that they'd failed to close it properly earlier, and did so when he left (which with a spring lock would be the same as locking it). Subsequently he has come to believe that an abductor had opened the door, and was hiding in the flat while he was there.

Of course all that could be lies - but it is not particularly improbable. I think that most people finding a door open in such circumstances would be likely to think the same as Mr McCann says he did in this version of events. They'd think they'd been a bit careless, and breathe a sigh of relief nothing terrible had happened as a result.

akenaton's assumption that the door was left open by the parents is just that, an assumption.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 10:01 AM

It has often been the way at Mudcat that personal disagreements be taken to PMs with the hopes people would work out their diffrences.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 10:08 AM

The title of this thread is Child Neglect and the Law. I'm just pointing out, regardless of ANY case, past, present or personal, that there IS NO LAW in the UK telling us when we can legally leave our children alone.

There ARE guidelines, there are offences under the Child Protection Act, but there ARE NO LAWS against leaving a toddler alone.

Anyone saying that the McCanns or any other family broke the law by leaving their children alone, is misunderstanding the difference between law and guidelines.

You're right Ake - it should be illegal to leave children under a particular age alone, but unfortunately, it isn't, it's impractical to enforce and in some cases as documented above, impossible to adhere to without major lifestyle difficulties.

My grip is secure enough, thank you.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,patty o'dawes
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 10:11 AM

I have read this thread through it's entirety. And although it is an emotive issue it is a discussion being held on a discussion board. I do not see the merit in using pm's in this discussion or any other where people disagree. Is everyone meant to hold the same opinion?

It hasn't degenerated into personal abuse and bearing in mind the subject it has stayed remarkably civilised. If it makes unpleasant reading for anyone they have the option not to read it?

Or is that too simple?

My personal opinion of the case is based on no factual knowledge and as such changes day to day. My only unchanging opinion is that children should never be left alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 10:34 AM

It was a suggestion, folks, okay? Jaysus! Have at it anywhere you like, I don't particularly care; was just reminding folks of what some have done in the past when things got too personal.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 10:58 AM

I appreciate the input of both Kat and patty, thanks for your observations.

Considering it's me being called everything from a Ghoul to stupid, I have no problem with any of these names if that is their choice of a reply.

The thread has remained civil in comparison to a lot of other sites discussing the case.

Let's accept and allow everyone to hold an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: bobad
Date: 23 Sep 07 - 11:42 AM

The senior detective leading the Madeleine McCann investigation is facing calls to step down after a woman jailed for the murder of her daughter claimed that his officers tortured her into confessing.

Leonor Cipriano, 36, told for the first time how she was forced to kneel on glass ashtrays with a bag over her head as police repeatedly hit her during almost 48 hours of nonstop questioning.

She is now serving a 16-year sentence for the murder of her eight-year-old daughter Joana, even though the body has never been found and she has since retracted her statement.

Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral, who is jointly leading the Madeleine case, is to face a criminal hearing for allegedly concealing evidence that three of his colleagues tortured Cipriano. The hearing could be as early as next month.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2511981.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 08:27 PM

We all have our Opinions and we all are entitled to them. We are also entitled to speak our opinions on a PUBLIC forum but I rather doubt that any of us will ever sit on a jury during a trial (IF it ever happens) of Madelines' abductor or murderer. Personally, I wouldn't even want to.

Evidence, people, evidence is what will count in the end.

The Truth may out, but remember Jon Benet Ramsey? Her killer has never been found or tried and they even had a body to work with.

I also wasn't aware that anyone actually keeps track of the number of postings from anyone. Is this a new thing, Giok? And are you in charge of counting? I guess I'm glad I'm not! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 01:09 PM

If you read my post you will see that I did not count the posts, someone else mentioned it.
Once again you have got your facts wrong.
I too am glad you're not in charge of anything!
Funny thing isn't it, someone makes a remark, and within a short time there are copycats around, no minds of their own some people.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 01:30 PM

So why did you need to speak on her (or his) behalf Giok? are you accountable for the counter ?

There have been many threads on mudcat with multiple postings from the same person - some to the point of ad nauseum.

I think it is an unfortunate precedent to single out any individual for public criticism in this way and maybe it's a lot easier to see the mote in someone else's eye!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 01:33 PM

If you want to start being petty I suggest you start a petty remarks thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 01:41 PM

That might be quite an interesting permathread too. Any time someone felt targetted by a petty remark they'd just post a link to that thread, instead of allowing the original thread to drift into a battle about petty remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 06:12 AM

I don't want to appear "petty" but I am very confused.

The rather petty and personal remark that was posted following Sorcha's post of 29 Sep 07 - 08:27 PM has been deleted resulting in my post that followed it appear totally out of context.

In addition the post complaining about "pettiness" has been "reinstated" giving an even more inaccurate context!

Recently John Hardley objected to this kind of thing: may I too ask that the "original" be reinstated as I hate to appear to be "sniping" at someone without a damn good reason!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 07:28 AM

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 10:46 AM

Lest there be any individual singled out I made the quick automatic count by the Old Search on six individuals. I present the results in the order I let the computer make the counts (overall N at this point in time =531):

Emma    53
Victor   41
Giok    57
McGrath 52
Wolfgang 27
eanjay 106

So now we know in case anyone is really interested. That the first three ("first" in terms of number of posts) account for more than 50% of all posts is not unusual at all. Frequencies ordered by rank are typically skewed this way. I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the long threads in Mudcat (in a plot of post frequencies by rank order) obey the relationship found in Zipf's law for word frequencies in natural languages.

Wolfgang (digressing)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 11:09 AM

Well I'm not really sure that it should be of "interest" to anybody but I suppose it seems pretty obvious that anyone with a genuine interest in a subject or issue should post in excess of anyone else.

I put my hand up the fact that I've contributed rather more than "average" to a fun thread about wierd wine and beer labels - but then a girl has to have a hobby :)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 11:17 AM

Wolfgang

I thought I'd try and get into the spirit of this digression.

I've only done 4 posts since Giok said I'd done 80 - so something is not right.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 11:20 AM

Gosh, I hope we don't have to resort to counting them manually - that will be painful:)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 12:41 PM

Beats working. I've got you manually at 107, eanjay, up to Wolfgang's last post. (Manually, I could easily be off by one.) Giok's hired counter must work cheap.

But this system doesn't account for volume or intensity.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 12:44 PM

heric, I wasn't actually meaning for anybody to spend the time doing it....................but thanks anyway.

It probably is better than working :)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 12:47 PM

volume or intensity

I don't suppose we have anything sophisticated enough to do that :)

Shame - it could be interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 01 Oct 07 - 01:21 PM

We could count adjectives.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 08:55 AM

Or we could get a life :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 11:52 AM

Oh, great. You just threw me off count.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 11:55 AM

1, 2, 3, 4, ......... :)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:03 PM

And are you remembering to count posts made by people using pseudonyms as well as their 'official' Mudcat login names?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 12:03 PM

... 98, 99, 100! Ready or not, here I come.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 09 Oct 07 - 09:27 PM

I just got back from a week's trip to England. When I left here I was securely in the camp of -- how could you leave young kids like that .....and (to a lesser extent) the parents were asking for trouble. In my own mind I think I agreed with the comments that the parents had probably given the kids something to help them sleep and that, perhaps, the older child had been abducted or accidentally killed via the substance given to help them sleep.

In England, I was amazed to see the story continuing to run on the front page daily of the newspapers......I saw not one reference to the children having been inappropriately left -- not ONE. Sympathy seemed to be very much with the McCanns - no mention of any failing on their part at all. General feeling seems to be that the child was clearly abducted and the Portuguese police were grasping at straws to be putting any blame on the parents.

Not offering an opinion -- just observing how much differently it is being viewed over there. I still to my position that children of that age should not be left but it was interesting to view a really different position being taken in the UK than we are seeing here in the States....

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Black Hawk on works PC
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 03:50 AM

Living in the UK - I have ONLY heard condemnation of the parents for leaving young children alone.
Newspapers print what sells - not the same as reflecting public opinion. They try (and often succeed) in forming that opinion but the people do still have some sort of independence of mindset.

Out of consideration for the parents loss, most people I have met are sympathetic but still think they should not have been left alone.

As for those who think its OK & 'everyone does it'. I have 3 children (now adults) & can swear they were never left while we went out. If I or my wife was not available, another family member was. Same for my 20+ nieces & nephews.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 07:31 AM

We can all swear it, and believe what we swear. But our memories aren't always reliable when it comes to stuff we shouldn't have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Black Hawk still on works PC
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 08:29 AM

Sorry McGrath

You believe what you like.
This threads title concerns law, children & neglect.
My children were NEVER left alone.
They have been asleep in another room but always where we could hear them if they cried, called etc.
You & others may think it normal to leave children to go for a drink but I & mine do not.

If you do not want the responsibility of looking after your children you should not have them.

Your veiled insults will not change my point of view one bit. It tells us more about your sense of responsibility than anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 10:04 AM

"This threads title concerns law, children & neglect."

That's just it, and as has been pointed out here several times, there is no British Law that states catagorically that you must never leave your child alone.

There are guidelines.

There are recommendations.

There is no law.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 12:36 PM

Liz - Nothing like a "child abandonment" or "endangering a child" law? I find that hard to believe. But I'll take your word for it if you say so.