BS: Child neglect and the law

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:31 AM

In Appenzell (where Ylenia lived), what you call irresponsible is absolutely the normal behaviour. Everybody knows everybody else and to send preschoolers on an errand is nothing unusual in any way.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:39 AM

The whole interview (in German)
(BTW, the police has searched twice with sniffer dogs in the forest Ylenia has been found, because that was the forest in which von Aesch has shot a man shortly before his suicide.)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:44 AM

If that is the normal behaviour in those parts then that makes it even more tragic.

Wolfgang, is there an English version of the interview?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: bfdk
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 09:41 AM

...what convenient minds people who are irresponsible in their parenting have.

eanjay, from the tender age of seven-and-threequarters I was subjected to the same kind of what you so offhandedly choose to call "irresponsible parenting" as Ylenia was. I was allowed to wander around on my own - from home to school, from there to the recreation centre and from there back home. Sometimes the route was home > recreation centre > school > recreation centre > home. The school was about half a mile from my home, the recreation centre about 2/3 of a mile the other side of the school. Later I got a bike and made the daily treks using that. Unlike Ylenia I was lucky, I never ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time, so I'm still alive today.

And where, then, were my "irresponsible parents" while all this was going on? Well, my father had the audacity to die on us when I was a toddler of 3, and ever since that time my mother struggled to make ends meet for her and me. So, while I wandered the streets unsuperwised, she was off to work, earning a meagre living for her and me.

She did what she had to do, and I did what I had to do. It wasn't what she'd have liked to do, but it was what could be done in the circumstances. And that's just it. Sometimes it's not about what ought to be done but about what can actually be done in the situation. For my part, I'd resent it strongly, were anybody to call what my mother did all those years ago "irresponsible"..

At present this 10-year-old girl is recovering in hospital after being set upon by a maniac on Tuesday of last week. A totally random attack. The attacker left her for dead with triple skull fracture. He is still at large. She's another child of a single mother, and by your standards I suppose she's the victim of "irresponsible parenting" - her mother was at work when the attack took place, in plain day light around 1.30 in the afternoon. Unlike me she was not so lucky. She *did* end up in the wrong place at the wrong time, but to blame her mother for not being at her side at the time of the attack would be adding insult to injury, methinks.

What would it help, for crying out loud, if Katrine's mother or Ylenia's mother was to blame herself from now and till kingdom come? And - disregarding what some journalist quotes Ylena's mother as saying - what do you and I know about what goes on in the recesses of this mother's mind?

Rant over.

Bente

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 10:46 AM

bfdk

There is a difference between seven and three quarters years old and 5.5 years old (Ylenia), 3 years old (Madeleine McCann) and 2 years old (McCann twins).

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 10:51 AM

Also, please don't generalise what I say in that way.

It would be ridiculous to suggest a 10 year old should be accompanied everywhere by parents.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 10:54 AM

Also, I'm not suggesting they should feel guilty (just because I would in those circumstances), but it seems to me that nobody wants to take any responsibility for anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 11:04 AM

No, I would not, Wolfgang.

Having said that, I did let my girls go places together in the small town we lived in in New England. We were only a few blocks form the downtown area with shops which they liked to go to and their friends were usually with them, as well as their big brother and uncle being around. At the time they were 7 and 10. Would I now? No. The world has changed too much even from then.

Bente, I had two parents and was still allowed to go off by myself, in the country on my bike or my horse.It was a different time then. My parents even put me on a bus at about 11 years old and let me go off across the Rockies to my aunt's house. But, I consider the world to be much less benign/safe these days than back then. I would never consider doing such these days. I've been a single mom working as your mom did, too and I let my son wander over hill and dale by himself at about 10. I would not do so, today.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 12:05 PM

eanjay, sorry, there is no translation of the whole interview.

Bente, I love your rant.

Kat, there are many places on this world where things now are still as in rural USA two generations ago.

I have not read a single voice in Germany blaming the (refugees from Kosovo) Sinti parents of the 8-year old girl for letting her daughter walk alone for 1 km in a foreign (but known to her) town. That is considered quite normal over here (children walking to or from school alone). There was no blame when the girl was missing and nobody did know for sure at which point of her walk she went missing. Of course, now as it is suspected with very high confidence by the police that Jenisa had reached her destination safely but did meet in the flat not her aunt but only the boyfriend of her aunt, there is no blame either.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 12:09 PM

It's good to know there are still places like that, Wolfgang. Maybe it's my grandmother-self who has such concern, although my daughter seems to be just as cautious, as does my daughter who lives back East with my other two grandsons. I just don't consider it as safe as it once was.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 12:19 PM

I have shortened the one question to Ylenia's mother by one significant word. This word shows how the Swiss think about the blame.
The actual wording of the question was:

Are you - unjustified- blaming yourself?

eanjay, to the question how she could go on the mother said, that the two other kids she has help a lot here, because she just has to function so the other two get daily what they need. The hours late night laying in bed (with nothing to do) are the difficult hours. She still needs medication to be able to sleep.

That perhaps puts a bit in perspective the answer to one of many questions.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wesley S
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 12:21 PM

Kat says "I just don't consider it as safe as it once was"

I keep wondering if the safety of our children has changed? Are there more preditors than there used to be when we were kids? Or do we now hear about abuse cases quicker now - so we think that things have gotten more dangerious for kids?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 12:39 PM

Wolfgang, you are right, it does put things in perspective.

There are worlds of differences between the McCanns leaving 3 children under the age of 4 alone when other options were available (which is still foremost in my mind) and Ylenia's mother letting her cycle that distance at the age of 5. I don't know if Ylenia was meeting another adult at the swimming pool. I do know that in England a child of that age would not be allowed in a swimming pool unless accompanied by an adult. Clearly there are places in this world where people can be more relaxed than in the big English cities or America.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 12:47 PM

I wonder that, too, Wesley, though I do believe there are just more people than back then, so perhaps that changes the perspective, too? Plus, there is more to be exposed to as far as predators and children are concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 01:03 PM

The police are telling us in Germany while the number of actual predator cases have gone down the fears have gone up. But mind that's only Germany.

Ylenia went to the pool to fetch something (Shampoo) and not to go swimming.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 01:53 PM

...leaving 3 children under the age of 4 alone when other options were available...

Meaning the hotel's childcare services, presumably - but I doubt very much if that would have involved having someone with the children all the time, rather than just looking in from time to time. I might be wrong there, but I believe that is what is normally involved in this kind of provision this side of the Atlantic.

In principle I think leaving children as young as this alone is not a good idea - but I think that what the McCanns say they did that night was within what would have been seen as culturally normative. In other words, it is wrong to use it as evidence that they must have been grossly irresponsible parents, and to use that as a jumping-off point for speculation that they should therefore be prime suspects for a far far greater level of irresponsibility and criminality.
................
I rather doubt whether the world actually is more dangerous than it was, in most places (aside of course from the increased level of traffic, which is by far the biggest risk for children). Our awareness of crimes and tragedies is vastly greater, and this leads to a greatly increased awareness of possible dangers. This has given rise to a heavily safety-first pattern of society, which I suspect probably has consequences which will put children and young adults at even greater risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 01:59 PM

It is possible to get sitters who will actually stay with the children in these resorts. IMO that is a better option than leaving them alone.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the fact they were irresponsible in leaving the children alone means that they are reponsible for accidental death or even murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 02:01 PM

It goes back to my comment that some people are unwilling to take any responsibility for anything and other people are unwilling to acknowledge when someone has been irresponsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 02:12 PM

Our awareness of crimes and tragedies is vastly greater, and this leads to a greatly increased awareness of possible dangers. This has given rise to a heavily safety-first pattern of society.

This is something that I do agree with. In the teaching profession, as in a lot of other professions, we have to do risk assessments virtually before we do anything. Also, health and safety is far more part of everyday life than it used to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 02:14 PM

Having spent a lot of time in Portugal, and having been married to a Portuguese lady, I would say that there is no other country in the world, with the possible exception of Italy, that I have found to be so child friendly. Of all countries therefore it's the one I find the least likely for this to happen,
One of the attractions for parents with kids to holiday there I should think!.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 02:15 PM

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the fact they were irresponsible in leaving the children alone means that they are reponsible for accidental death or even murder.

I think some people are actually making precisely that imaginative leap, and they should not.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 02:21 PM

Giok, Portugal is a very child friendly place and I think that is why there has been condemnation there of people leaving children alone.

MGofH, nobody recently has suggested that and I most certainly haven't - some people have been very open minded about things.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 02:26 PM

You are certainly determined to be right aren't you. You put down or try to invalidate everyone else's point of view.
I do wish you'd for once say "OK but; this is how I see it."
Just look back at your last several posts, they are nearly all rebuttals of other peoples points of view, and/or life experiences.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 02:35 PM

Giok, I think that is a most unfair statement. Equally, I could say the same about you and others. Are you "ganging up" on me?

Look back at my earlier posts today and see where I have agreed that other people are right.

Clearly we are not going to agree on some issues and I for one am not willing to labour my point any more.

Even my terrapins would be able to see where I am coming from and that I am allowed an opinion even if it is different from yours.

Some people seem determined to keep going back to the early posts in this thread. I really thought that we had moved on after a few days break - but clearly not.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 02:40 PM

Scenario XXII: Johnny falls during recess and scrapes his knee. His teacher, Mary, finds him crying, and gives him a hug to comfort him.
1977 - Johnny soon feels better and goes back to playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces three years in federal prison. Johnny undergoes five years of therapy.

Scenario XXIII: Johnny takes apart leftover 4th of July firecrackers, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up an anthill.
1977 - Ants die.
2007 - ATF and the FBI are called and Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. Homeland Security and CIA investigate parents, siblings are removed from the home, computers are confiscated, and Johnny's dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Chris B (Bonr Again Scouser)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 02:41 PM

Eanjay is right about Portugal being child-friendly. When our daughter was about 18 months we took her out with us to eat every evening. People couldn't have mone out of their way more to make us all feel welcome. We certainly wouldn't have left her in the apartment. In that part of the world there's just no need.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 02:44 PM

eanjay, I also happen to agree with McG - People ARE making precisely that leap. The poor parents have been tried, found guilty and hung by many on here from day one. They have not been convicted of ANY crime yet they are castigated publicly. I'm sure it makes them feel much better about themselves. If they are ever found guilty of anything I will happily condemn them but until then I think people should keep their morbid noses out of it.

And before you accuse me of joining those ganging up on you I think you should consider that fact that if so many people have noticed the flaws in your reasoning then maybe it is not the other people at fault?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 02:46 PM

Dave, as I said - I have never made that leap myself and since the few days break nobody else has, so why drag it all up again?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 02:54 PM

Does that make 80 posts in this thread so far eanjay?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 02:56 PM

Just trying to be allowed my opinion, Giok.

I haven't got the time or energy to count all your posts on this or any thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 03:01 PM

Oh I didn't do it, someone else did, I couldn't be that bothered mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 03:04 PM

Giok, I'm not willing to resort to childishness and I'm not your mate!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 04:14 PM

That leap has been made on the thread, implicitly - and of course in many other places, implicitly and often explicitly on the internet and in the media.

The very fact that Portugal is a child-friendly place is one factor in explaining why parents might feel at ease dining out and popping back regularly to see the kids were all right. The truth is that is the kind of things otherwise loving and caring parents do do. That's not saying it's a good idea, but then all kinds of things loving and caring parents have done at various times haven't been a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 04:26 PM

Thanks McG, that's exactly what I meant.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 05:38 PM

Portugal is very child friendly. It's not unusual to see children out with their family for a meal late into the evening and staff in restaurants welcome them.

Clearly the McCann's didn't want their kids ruining their evening so they left them at home ALONE.

eanjay, don't take the bait, I totally agree with everything you said.

I repeat, leaving three children alone is WRONG and ILLEGAL. I stand by what I have been saying since May, the parents in my opinion are responsible for a lot more than neglect.

Good to see Dave back on the thread, is this the same Dave who said in May he would not return to this thread as long as I posted on it ?????????

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 05:47 PM

Nobody has disagreed with the fact that it was wrong to leave the children. It is however very sick to apparently be gloating that the parents got what they deserved for doing so. 'Cos I may be wrong, and I'm not the only one either, but that's the way your smug posts come over Victor.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 07:37 PM

the parents in my opinion are responsible for a lot more than neglect.

That was the kind of thing I was thinking of in my last thread. It's the kind of attitude that's been responsible for an awful lot of awful things being done - often by basically decent enough people.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:53 PM

Am I correct in assuming you meant post instead of thread McG ?

So why am I smug John ? Is it because I remained with my children every night of every family holiday and brought them with us each evening to restaurants ?

Or is it because I found the McCann's selfish, irresponsible attitude towards their own children every single night of their family holiday so repulsive ?

Or is it because I found the reactions of two people who just lost a beautiful child, extremely cold and lacking in emotion ?

I repeat, there are a number of questions regarding the movements of the McCann's the evening the child "illegality" went missing, still to receive credible answers.

If you find the above to be "smug" then yes I am.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 09:59 PM

"the reactions of two people who just lost a beautiful child, extremely cold and lacking in emotion "

That was precisely the kind of thing that was said about Linda Chamberlain, and about other women who have been falsely accused, falsely convicted, and wrongly jailed for killing their children - and later exonerated. It's the kind of shallow accusation made of women who have been raped but who are disbelieved because they do not react in an openly emotional way.

People react to trauma in many ways, very often in ways that are seen as "cold and lacking in emotion".

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: mg
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 05:38 AM

It is totally irrelevant whether Portugal is kid friendly or not. Everyone knows the trouble that a pair of two year old twins can get into on a moment's notice. It's nuts to leave them anywhere. No one I can see is gloating but we should be on our high horses about this. You can be sympathetic to the parents of course, but at the same time send a strong message to everybody else out there to make arrangements for their children. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 05:42 AM

There is a big difference in being falsely accused and an unsafe conviction. Men have also been victims of false accusations of rape and been jailed.

I use the above examples to show you that nothing in life is as black and white as you tend to think it is.

Yes people do react differently to trauma, I am unaware of any cases of trauma lasting five months.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 06:05 AM

Trauma I think you'll find the words 'weeks OR years' in the second paragraph.
Who's being an amateur psychologist now Victor?
So you are now aware of trauma lasting 5 months and more I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 06:50 AM

Yes your right, your still being an amateur psychologist.
As I said I was unaware of "trauma lasting five months". Amateurs tend to Google.

Did someone not advise earlier about believing everything we read on the net ?

I repeat, I am entitled to my opinions regarding this case.

I am still of the opinion the mother is responsible for causing accidental death, induced by sedation. And both parents are guilty of a cover up.

Talk until your blue in the face or run out of names to call me, but I remain of this opinion.

Please note I use the word "Opinion".

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 07:05 AM

I just wonder what gives you the right ot sit in judgement on these people, and why you think it perfectly acceptable to broadcast your 'opinions' on a public forum. In my view it amounts to libel!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 07:21 AM

We could probably get rid of child neglect completely if everybody suspected of it got equal support from politicians, celebrities and millionaires. A lot of people would benefit it there were constant distractions in their cases.

However, that doesn't help the children who are neglected and those are the people we should be concerned about.

There wouldn't be any speculation if it wasn't being rammed down our throats every minute of every day.

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

"There is a big difference in being falsely accused and an unsafe conviction."

Victor's implication appears to be is that Linda Chamberlain, Angela Cannings and the late Sally Clark should still be seen as likely killers of their children because they were not sufficiently openly motional in the way they reacted in public.

It is also true that there have been cases where people, who have later turned out to be indisputably guilty, have succeeded in coming across as totally distraught in a way that has satisfied people and the media, that they cannot be guilty.

The daft thing is that, whether guilty or not guilty the trauma, though different, is just as great. And some people react emotionally and others by being cold and detached. As way of sorting the sheep from the goats this is totally unreliable.

Unfortunately people who think thta it is reliable do get sit on juries, and this is a factor that leads juries to convict and acquit the wrong people.

I hope that Victor never gets to sit on any jury. That doesn't mean I think he's a bad person (or someone who shouldn't be a Mudcatter) - but I think he puts too much trust in his gut reactions as a basis for his opinion-forming mechanism on this kind of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:38 AM

"Free George Davis"

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 09:03 AM

Which appears to confirm what I wrote: "Victor's implication appears to be that Linda Chamberlain, Angela Cannings and the late Sally Clark should still be seen as likely killers of their children because they were not sufficiently openly emotional in the way they reacted in public."

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 09:48 AM

Sorry, wrong on every count. I know little about the cases you refer to other than the what I could read on the net, and it's already been pointed out that we shouldn't believe all we read here.

I repeat, I am allowed my opinion on the McCann case and you attempting to discredit me by trying to imply I am now referring to cases I NEVER made a reference to seems a bit sad really.

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

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

Are we gonna have Part II of this thread when the trial is about to take place, while it's going on or when it's over?