BS: Child neglect and the law

Subject: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Canadienne
Date: 14 May 07 - 02:16 PM

As an ex Child Care Officer I was interested in the discussion about the legal implications of the recent very sad abduction case in Portugal where 3 children under the age of 4 were left unattended for several evenings while their parents sat in a bar with other friends having declined the available personal baby-sitting service charged at £10 per hour.

It appears that mudcat does not always apply the "freedom of speech" it claims in other instances but this topic is currently being discussed on other forums in the UK and anyone interested in following thoughts on this issue, both objective and "emotional" will have to express their views elsewhere such as a popular tabloid forum

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 May 07 - 03:15 PM

Issues surrounding children are always sensitive.

The main thing is to make sure that relevant information is in everyone's minds to ensure a good outcome for the child.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 May 07 - 03:16 PM

So you're using the law to condemn loving parents who saved themselves £10 an hour paid to a baby sitting service, which would have provided the same service.
Or do you think the baby sitting services at these holiday hotels and complexes provide someone who will actually sit with the children?
They 'Look in' on children on a regular basis, which is exactly what the parents in this case were doing.
It's one thing being able to quote the law, it's something totally different to put yourself in the shoes of responsible and loving parents.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Scoville
Date: 14 May 07 - 03:23 PM

I reserve judgement on this particular incident since I've only seen short news articles on it and don't know the particulars, but I have to say that I would never, under any circumstances, leave children that young alone anywhere. It probably wouldn't occur to me that they might be kidnapped, but there's way too much stuff kids even that young can get into if you don't watch them that it would never cross my mind to leave them unattended even at a fancy hotel. If you really need a break that badly, get an actual babysitter for yourself and have them watched properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 May 07 - 03:24 PM

Giok, if you are right about the services provided at these holiday hotels and complexes (and I'm sure you are) then perhaps, after recent very sad events, they need to review what they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Canadienne
Date: 14 May 07 - 04:46 PM

Hi all,
"I have jsut read these blogs and being an ex member of mark warner staff (a nanny infact) I feel I want to add my point of view to this 'debate'
Mark warner have been voted (on numerous occasions) for having the best childcare in the world, priding themselves on looking after the children with a very high standard,the services the resorts offers are as follows.. daytime childcare(we all know what that is) also 'room listing' services, where the nannys will walk around to the rooms (if parents have signed up foir this free of charge) and listen to check there is no problem in the room, they are not allowed to enter the rooms and all rooms must be closed!!
they also offer babysitting service in the eves uptil (approx) 2am, where the nanny will sit in the room with the little ones until parents return, either frm resteraunt or local town etc,"

- this is from a post written to the UK forum I referred to above. As reported in the press the £10 per hour charge was for a "personal" baby sitter who would remain in the same room as the children.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: skipy
Date: 14 May 07 - 04:48 PM

Please put this on hold for now, at least until we have an outcome!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 14 May 07 - 04:59 PM

I find it incredible that the original thread was deleted. I'm with Canadienne here....free speech only about some things.....sheesh.

Giok, 'responsible'? Now, I wasn't there, don't know all the facts and am reserving judgement, but 'looking in' on under 4 year olds????

What if there had been booze or pills left in the room and they got into them? What if they'd been playing with matches and died along with perhaps other people in a fire???

I'll wait to pass judgement til it's all over.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 14 May 07 - 05:22 PM

Leaving Children alone - UK 'law'.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 May 07 - 05:56 PM

I find it incredible that a bunch of folks who were not even there think it is so important to judge these parents, or any others for that matter, with only what they can glean from the media.

If you want a discussion on child neglect and the law (of which country?) then why not do so but let this specific, unfolding case go until the whole story is known, if ever.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 14 May 07 - 06:03 PM

kat, my dear, I didn't mean it in quite that way. I am not and never will sitting in Judgement for them...I actually meant that I hadn't made up MY mind just exactly what is going on or happened. Sorry I wasn't more explicit.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 14 May 07 - 06:28 PM

If a mother from Dorset had left her kids alone and popped into a neighbours for a drink and this dreadful event had occurred I doubt she would receive the same level of understanding. She probably would have been charged by now.

My original thread sought understanding beyond knee jerk emotions.

Thanks Sorcha, free speech only exists on this site for the selected few.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 May 07 - 09:20 PM

I'm confused-- what are we bashing in this particular thread?

Mudcat admin actions in a specific instance, about which we know little if anything...

Parenting practices in a specific instance, about which we know little if anything...

Hotel childcare services in a specific instance, about which we know little if anything...


I can't keep it straight!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Scoville
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:19 PM

I don't think we're bashing anything yet but I think I see a descent into Mudcat-monitoring-bashing on the horizon. I hope I'm wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:56 AM

I think that the moderators should consider the serious possibility that these threads are being set up by the actual abductors, or abductors of other children, in an attempt to blame their actions on the parents. Please let delete all threads about this case, at least until we have some facts.

Maddy come home.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:23 AM

Canadienne/Victor, whatever your name is. Your thread was deleted once. I did request it remained to show the depths some people will stoop to. Maybe I shouldn't have called you a shit-stirring gloater, even if that is what you are. Seeing as you are so interested in the 'law' why don't you apply the first principle of English law? That everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You accuse other people of knee jerk but go on to use the kind of tabloid insinuation that could do no end of damage to the poor parents.

If you want to attract some attention to your sad little life why don't you do us all a favour. Go and stick your head in a bucket of cow shit. It would do no one any harm but yourself and would be far more entertaining for the rest of us.

Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:35 AM

It is very easy to become emotive about such issues. The UK media seems to adopt one such every summer - blonde, blue-eyed little angel/s, grieving parents, a nation waits...the treatment is almost pornographic and does absolutely nothing to resolve the case. It's almost as if such events are seen as a necessary catharsis.
Interesting points are raised by Peter Wilby in yesterday's Media Guardian. Hand-wringing tabloid readers perhaps shouldn't read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:21 AM

It is about time some media take an interest in what now follows and do a bit of investigative journalism.

Whilst we are all deeply shocked and praying for Maddy's safe return, more and more people both here and in Portugal are now of the opinion that the McCann's behaviour was, at the very least, negligent and irresponsible in leaving three babies unattended (yes, Dave Poldark, unattended because 'checking up on them every half hour? is not good enough.

Besides, 'THEY WERE NOT HAVING DINNER at a nearby restaurant' way past dinner time. Any aspect of this horrendous episode that point as what is a case of gross negligence and irresponsibility seems to be 'diluted' by the press when the bottom line is that they left their babies unattended (not only that night) and were having a good time drinking with friends (and relatives?) at a TAPAS BAR SOME 100/200 yards away while their babies remained UNSUPERVISED.

Even if it is true that they were 'checking up on their babies every one half hour' (counting the minutes between drinks, of course), how many times did they go up and down 'to check', four, six, eight times?

For how many hours did they stay at the 'nearby restaurant' TAPAS BAR having a good time while their children were unattended? Unattended why?

when the Ocean Club at Praia da Luz CATERS FOR FAMILIES, has a crèche and, besides, can offer a babysitter service at the drop of a hat? This is something that as I was told by the police in plain Portuguese, they cannot understand. Furthermore, if Mrs McCann went to 'check' once again around 10 pm, this is a clear indication that they had no intention of getting back to their apartment and their children in a hurry.

I speak fluent Portuguese and have spoken to members of the Polícia de Segurança Pública, the Polícia Judiciária and the Ministerio da Justiça simply because I had a feeling that, for some reason, in order to minimise the unquestionable responsibility of the McCanns' actions, 'the nearby restaurant; was being 'moved' by the press closer and closer to the apartment.

What I got was the reaction of professionals who are being very tactful and diplomatic but, at the same time, are furious at the way their prompt action and their efforts plus those of Firefighters and the Polícia Marítima are being criticised.

They also say that, as there are no signs of anybody breaking in, because the doors were left unlocked, any criminal who had taken an interest in the McCanns behaviour (for this was not the only time they were 'dining at the nearby restaurant'), could have walked in and abducted Maddy.

Another theory is that the girl may have woken up, was missing her mum and dad and had gone outside to look for her parents and…. what may have happened after that is anybody's guess.

This is an extremely distressing situation and we are all sure the McCanns must be going through hell not only because their beautiful little angel is missing but because deep down they know that without their negligent, irresponsible behaviour this might never have happened.

I could not agree more that Mr and Mrs McCann should be held responsible regardless of the outcome.

Yes Dave someone will pat you on the back, but it won't be right minded people such as myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:44 AM

If that is right minded I know where there is a house full of them.

You say I could not agree more that Mr and Mrs McCann should be held responsible regardless of the outcome. but have spent the previous posts and paragraphs in this one doing exactly that. It's funny how a caring parent, fluent in other languages with much child care experience can not only believe but go on to repeat the half truths, insinuations and myths put out by the gutter press. What is more you then go on to post this twaddle to a forum about folk and blues music. Yes, very right minded indeed.

Maybe you are a child care professional. I sincerely hope not for the sake of all the people in that profession who do really care. Then again maybe you are one of those who does give the profession a bad name. Ever been involved in any of the cases where caring parents spend lots of time with their children? To abuse and injure them? Maybe to murder them? Perhaps you are one of the ones who let these 'caring parents' get away with it and that is why you are so twisted?

I am quite happy for this thread to continue as it shows you up for the sad low life you really are but if Joe or any of the clones would care to delete it I would not object too much.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:55 AM

Funny how these people will not speak to the press as Portuguese law forbids it while a case is 'sub judice' but they will apparently tell all to our anonymous guest !
Victor, or whatever name you're posting under today, I think you are an attention seeker, and a trouble maker.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:59 AM

I think to remember an incident in which a Danish(?) tourist mother was accused of child neglect in the USA for leaving her baby in a pram outside of a restaurant.

She was very surprised about the accusation for that behaviour was quite normal in Denmark. Anyone passing by and hearing the baby crying would enter the restaurant and alarm the mother.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:07 AM

Victor,

your post is a copy&paste from a post in the link provided by Canadienne. Are you the one who has posted in that tabloid under another user name or have you forgotten to mark as a quote which were not your own words?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:09 AM

Dave, I am not Victor and re-opened this thread to get away from the mass outpourings of heartfelt sympathy at the abduction of a small child and discuss, objectively I hoped, the issues involved and the way in which they are handled by a press whose sole object is to trade on those emotions and sell as many copies as possible.

Yes I did train and work as a Child Care Officer and I did work with both abusing and neglecting parents who could be extremely skilled at disguising the truth of their actions. I hope that whatever else my faults I kept the welfare of the CHILDREN at the forefront; I know from my own experience and the experience of many colleagues that it is often difficult to consider that parents could be responsible for physical and sexual abuse or even such "casual" neglect of their own children.

I don't want to argue with you in such subjective and abusive terms Dave please accept that in this "house of music" there are many viewpoints.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Canadienne
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:10 AM

sorry - that was me

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:04 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6623127.stm
This is a BBC report with quotes from close family who were kept informed by the parents.
They are clear that the couple were eating, that they checked the children at about 9.30, and then at around 9.45 to 10., and that there was clear evidence of a break in through a shuttered window.
The parents are said to be deriving comfort and strength from the support and good will of so many people.
I hope that they do not come across these Guest posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Grab
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:10 AM

Or do you think the baby sitting services at these holiday hotels and complexes provide someone who will actually sit with the children?

Curiously, the guy who did my haircut last Monday said he took his family to exactly that place for the last couple of years. And one of the major reasons was that they *do* have a creche with full-time attendants, and they *do* have a top-class babysitting service where the babysitter will stay with the kids while the adults go off for a meal, at a very reasonable cost.

There is still a question of what's appropriate care, though. You don't sit with a baby 24 hours a day, do you? So I don't think the problem is failure to have someone in the same room as the kid. But it is usually considered essential to have someone within earshot of children, not to protect against kidnappers but for all the other problems that kids can get themselves into, like getting their head stuck through the bars of the cot or stuff like that. So leaving the kid without a babysitter is usually considered negligent. 99 times out of 100 they'd get away with it, so they were incredibly unlucky for it to come to this, but it was still negligent.

Of course, that doesn't make it their fault - the fault is clearly with the evil person (or people) who abducted the kid. But their negligence made it possible, and I'm sure they're living with the guilt of that "if-only".

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 15 May 07 - 08:22 AM

These parents have already said that they have let their child down and they do face possible prosecution. They are paying a very high price for any shortcomings they may have had.

However, they are doing all the right things to be reunited with their child and the most important thing at the moment is to make sure this is kept in everyone's minds so that nobody forgets and everyone is vigilant.

The priority at the moment is the child's well being.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 May 07 - 08:37 AM

Suspect arrested this morning, believed to be the son of an English resident, who has a villa about 200 metres from the complex from which the child disappeared.
Too early to heave a sigh of relief though, apart from not knowing if they have the man involved, but the child is still missing.
Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:47 AM

I'm sure the two people in this world who KNOW they were stupid, especially given their professional backgrounds, are the parents of this poor little girl, but beating them up serves no purpose at this moment. Their heartache must be made even worse by their feelings of guilt, so why do some feel a need to heap more guilt and pain on them? It seems to be a kind of 'smug superiority' thing.

Show me a parent who has never done something stupid. It's impossible, we all have in varying degrees.

I reckon the child is who matters. We should all concentrate on her, and leave the other stuff to be dealt with by the appropriate authority (if it be deemed appropriate), at a much later date when, hopefully, there will have been a happy outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:47 AM

I have already let canadienne know by PM that I am not at all happy with her re-creating a thread that has already been deemed unacceptable by Mudcat. She has informed my privately that she is not Victor and did not start this thread out of maliciousness towards the parents but out of frustration that the original thread was deleted and with the idea of providing a vehicle to discuss the shortcomings of the parents in a rational way.

I disagree completely and have already said so by PM. Had I have known that canadienne was not Victor I would not have bundled them together.

I apologised privately for that and now do so publicly. Canadienne you are not Victor. You still should not have recreated a thread deemed unacceptable. I have also said I will post no more on this thread unless 'Victor' decides to come out from behind the curtain to let us know who he is and what qualifies him as judge jury and executioner.

Until he does my last words are, Victor - Crawl back under your stone Try getting your thrills by kicking someone who can fight back. Until then leave normal people alone.

Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Candienne
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:28 AM

Thank you Dave, I'm sure we can agree to disagree on some issues but I appreciate your apology both personal and public.

Like everyone else I am hoping for a joyful outcome from the new developments that Giok referred to earlier but I will NOT be contributing to the, less than transparent, "fighting fund" set up by an uncle which has enabled the parents so far to fly out two lawyers and a priest!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:42 AM

How do you PM a guest Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mr Happy
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:56 AM

GUEST,Canadienne - PM
Date: 14 May 07 - 02:16 PM

GUEST,Candienne - PM
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:28 AM


Is Guest No2 an imposter or is it a typo - note spellings!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:15 AM

How DO you pm a guest Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:48 AM

I agree with Grab. It was a neglegent thing to do, leaving small children alone like that, and in such a unrestricted place as a hotel.

I have already let canadienne know by PM that I am not at all happy with her re-creating a thread that has already been deemed unacceptable by Mudcat.

Who says it is unacceptable? We discuss all sorts of things. It sounds like a lot of people are apologists for these parents' poor judgement. Before I read this thread I was trying to learn more about the case, but the information was limited. This is the kind of case that when we hear about them in the US it is in conjunction with an Amber Alert. Those have helped the outcomes somewhat, but it is still a grim situation. Why don't you want to discuss it--might jinx the outcome? I don't think so.

Common sense says you don't leave children that small alone. Period. People are prosecuted for that all of the time here in the U.S. There isn't a lot of sympathy for the parents who put their social life over their children's welfare. In Texas, it is illegal to leave a child home alone if they're under the age of 12, and it may vary from state to state. The parents should have coughed up a few pounds and paid for the babysitter.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:04 PM

Armchair Judges, Trolls, and Dual Personality Guests and, yes, Dave, how do you PM a guest?

Anybody care to concentrate on the little girl and send good thoughts to her coming home safe and sound? Oh, now there's a worthy thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:15 PM

How do you PM a guest Dave?

One cannot PM a GUEST, but one can PM a Mudcatter using the GUEST tag if one knows who she is.

Canadienne herself has asked to PM her for instance in this post in another thread:

As you are well aware of my idenity Giok and why I choose to post as a "guest" I wonder why you simply did not PM me with that question or do I have to guess at your aggenda?

Now you could try to guess which Mudcatter uses the word "agenda" in this way. If one has followed Canadienne's posting history it is not too difficult.

You may PM me for the solution if you really want to know.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:20 PM

Well, I hope you don't consider a statement of facts regarding the law to be "trolling." Honest discourse needs to be able to include information that may upset. Sobeit.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:48 PM

This is fun. I was hoping Dave had mudcat's perhaps first tripartite personality (Dave? Dave's not here. No this is Dave) but I figured Wolfgang's was the answer.

Aggenda. Bobert could spell it that way. So could I. But he couldn't spell the rest of the sentence so well. I could. But it wasn't me.

Aggrandizement/aggrandizer? No, not helpful. That's everybody here.

Wait wait don't tell me.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:01 PM

Oh, I see it. I've said it before don't post above the line. Those people will cut your balls off and serve them to you with garlic.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:02 PM

No, SRS, I do not consider your posts to be trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:07 PM

Dave where is my pm ? I presume this means "Private Messaging".

I remain steadfast in my belief this is a terrible crime and the parents must share some of the responsibly.

Thank you for exposing this "Dave" individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:10 PM

Heric's post shows me that I may have misled some by my post (without any intention). The "aggenda" bit was just a typo in a copy and paste. She usually spells the word "agenda" of course.

My point was not the spelling but the sense and context. Guessing other posters hidden "agendas" was a favourite motive in her posts.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:02 PM

There are some really sick smug bastards around, aren't there? People get there kicks in the strangest ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:12 PM

Major thread drift.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch...

I truly feel for the girl and her parents. They must be going through hell right now. That said, I would never consider going out to eat (or to a bar, it really doesn't matter which) while leaving three children under age four alone, even if it was for only fifteen (or thirty) minutes at a time. I would not do this at home let alone while on vacation.

I do hope she is found soon and is in good health.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:20 PM

Oh oh. Sick I may be, smug I am not. MGOH never hits a specific target when he lobs those in. If I have offended anyone who is genuinely upset about this, I apologize. I am horrified for the girl, sickened for the parents, and recognize that they are guilty of something (as we all are). All of that was and is so obvious I didn't even feel the need to mention it.

If, however, the smug sick bastards are others uplist with their strong pronouncements for or against the parents, well, then, I guess I can't help them.

Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: dianavan
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:06 PM

Wolfgang - Why do you think the poster is a she based on the term agenda? I recall a Big Mick and others also using the term. You sure go to extremes in order to oust the quest, whoever they might be.

I didn't see the first thread but this one is really f#$*&d!

They parents will have to deal with their grief and probably the law as well (who knows what Portugese laws are on this matter). In the meantime, lets just hope the little girl is found safe and sound.

Just for the record, if babysitting was available, why not hire a sitter? Seems to me they were being cheap to the extreme. If they can afford a flight to Portugal and deluxe accomodations, they should be able to afford a babysitter. In addition, why should they need public donations of any kind? Its not as if these people are without means. I can think of alot of other parents I would sympathize with before I sympathize with these two. Something about them is just not right.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:32 PM

"If the cap,fits wear it..."

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:36 PM

You still should not have recreated a thread deemed unacceptable.
I wasn't aware of that. Who has decreed that the OP was unacceptable? Or should we all dance to the mawkish tabloid tune?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:48 PM

Look, I know who Canadienne is....female, OK? The 'enne' tells you that anyway. It's apparently not ok to discuss it because a thread was deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:48 PM

Well, the apology is in place. You don't have to pick it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Hawker
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:22 PM

Well said Backwoodswoman, I said something similar on the deleted thread and am saying no more!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:47 PM

Well said too Backwoodwoman about the imaginary pm skills of Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:21 AM

Thank you for exposing this "Dave" individual

There is nothing to expose, Victor. My name is Dave Polshaw as it says above. I used to be Dave the Gnome but decided to use my real name. Unlike you who will never be 'exposed' because you don't want people in the real world to know what a nasty twisted little liece of work you are. So, put your money where your mouth is

My Name is Dave Polshaw - What is yours?
I live in Salford, Manchester, UK. You?
I work in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. You?
I can be found in either the Bridge Folk Club, Newcastle, on a Monday when I am in Newcastle or at the White Lion Folk Club, Swinton, Mondays and the odd Friday when I am back home. You?

As to the other point. Wolfgang has the gist. Nothing sinister. Canadienne is someone who I know but I did not realise until she informed me. The whys and wherefores are no-ones business but her own.

Now, until I can see evidence to the contrary, I can only assume that Victor is too much of a coward to give us any details.

However, this thread is not about me, Canadienne or any of the other posters. I said I would not post again but seeing as I needed to address the above issue I may as well cover the other points as well.

Who says the thread is unacceptable?

There was a troll thread created by Victor. It was deleted by the Mudcat editing team. This thread was created by another Guest who, unknown to me at the time, was someone different to Victor. There has been discussion in the Mudcat editing team as to whether the first thread should have been deleted and it has been decided to let the first decision stand but leave this thread alone. I agree with the first decision. Canadienne agrees with the second. Like proper grown up people we have agreed to disagree on that point and on whether discussing the culpability of the McCanns in public is productive.

End results?

The Mudcat editing team has some tough decisions to make. They have made one I disagree with but I will stand by them and defend that decision.

Cannadienne believes that discussing the McCanns in these terms is acceptable. I disagree but again, now I have made my views known, there is little benefit in repeating them.

Victor, in my opinion, created the first thread out of maliciousness. I cannot show you the thread as it has been deleted but it was full of gutter press language and snide insinuation purely to get him some attention. If he would care to get in touch with me personally - And there are ample ways of doing so for a guest with any intelligence. I would be quite happy to discuss it with him, over a pint or two if required, with me paying (!), and let him explain what he is doing in the same way that Canadienne has. Until I know who he is and why he did what he did I am afraid that I shall make the same assumption that he made over the McCanns - Guilty until proven innocent. As always when I offer such a challenge, I will not hold my breath.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:41 AM

I suspect that the parents thought they were in a warm, family-centred, affectionate place where everyone around would take care of their kids, and hiring a sit-in babysitter was over the top.

It may be that their children make strange with people they don't know, and wouldn't sleep with a sit-in babysitter.

The service where a sitter walks around and listens outside the door is obviously superfluous since the parents were checking their own children every 15 minutes.

Under normal circumstances, surely leaving the kids asleep while you snack a few metres away is scarcely child neglect.

I hope - as all do here - that the little one is found safe and well. It's looking increasingly unlikely, but where there's no body, there's hope.

The man being questioned may yet prove quite innocent - I'm shocked at Sky's portrayal of him.

I pray that some lonely girl in want of a baby stole the child, and will give her back.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor, Mapperton Dorset
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:10 AM

Dave, I hold no desire to hold a public argument with you, keep the name calling up if you wish.


I live in Mapperton in Dorset. I lived in Portugal for seven years. I am a father of four children. I play guitar (badly).


I am angry that this family left their child unattended. I repeat I NEVER left my children alone any time I was aboard.

I repeat, if it was a "party" holiday they wanted (there with eight other couples with them) leave the kids at home with grandparents.

Because someone asks reasonable questions on this site they are a "Troll or a Trouble maker".

Was it you that went crying to your cronies asking for the thread to be deleted ?

If so, the Salvation Army or The Christian Mothers Union sites may be better suited to you.

So many questions remain unanswered.

No one else saw Madeleine on that Thursday before the incident.

No one can confirm that Madeleine actually went into that room and was put to bed that night.

There is a continual presumption on the part of the Press that Madeleine was actually in that room on Thursday night - but this is based ONLY on the McCanns statements. However, they have continually contradicted themselves regarding the times that they checked on the kids and whether or not the room was locked.


As the police have received contradicted statement after statement from the McCanns and their friends on what had actually taken place on that Thursday evening you cannot fault them for being suspicious.

Why did the McCanns allow cleaners to clean the apartment on the Friday morning erasing vital forensic evidence if the McCanns truly felt Madeleine had been abducted from her bed on that night - incredulous beyond belief!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 May 07 - 06:35 AM

Dave, I hold no desire to hold a public argument

Yet you start a thread which you must have known is contraversial omn a public forum? "No desire to" must mean something different to me.

I live in Mapperton in Dorset. I lived in Portugal for seven years. I am a father of four children. I play guitar (badly).

Well done. I applaud your honesty at least. I am very rarely in that area but let me know which clubs you play guitar badly in and I will endevour to meet you. You already know which clubs I attend so I extend an invitation to you as well. PS - I beat you by one kid and three badly played instruments:-)

Because someone asks reasonable questions on this site they are a "Troll or a Trouble maker".

No. When an unknown guest starts a contravesial thread they are known as a troll or troublemaker. How were you outside this definition when you started the thread in question?

Was it you that went crying to your cronies asking for the thread to be deleted ?

Just how short is your memory? I actualy requested in the thread that it be left where it was so everyone could see the depths people could sink to to get attention. My issue with this one is that once the initial one was deleted, people should have respected the editing teams decision. Their job is tough enough and if I can stand by that decision even if I disagree I don't see why other people can't. I do not know and have never met a single of of the editing team so cronies hardly fits the bill.

You have been good enough to give us some details of who you are and why you raised the issue so you are no longer included in the definition of 'anonymous' guest who posts a contraversial thead so I will now treat you as someone I do know who I disagree with. I do not retract anything I said when you were posting anonymously.

Back to the thread then. You are still assuming guilt before innocence. You are still posting views which could be both hurtful and harmful to anyone involved. It is not something I would do myself but if you want to continue to do so feel free.

I guess I will never stop people repeating what they hear in the media but I will give it a damn good try in those instances where I feel it is important to show up the press for the parasites they are.

Good luck. I hope venting your feelings makes you feel better if nothing else. If and when the McCanns are convicted of whatever they are being accused, inside a court of law, I will comment on their actions. Until then it is all just speculation and rumour, a game which I do not want to join in with.

Regards

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 May 07 - 08:10 AM

My question about PM's to a guest wasn't intended to start another argument - I just thought somebody else knew a way that I didn't. That's all, no other reason.

And I agree with Dave.

BTW, it's BackwoodsMAN (At least it was last time I looked down there) :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:03 PM

Why do you think the poster is a she based on the term agenda? (Dianavan)

I don't. It is just one tiny piece in a puzzle. There are lots of indications in Canadienne's posts (content, placement, and onset) to make a quite reliable inference on the Mudcat name of this particular GUEST poster. I'd bet at least 10:1 that I am right. Since I have no contact to anyone who knows for sure Canadienne's Mudcat name, I cannot be 100% sure. But if I'm right they is a "she".

(And all that only because I wanted to explain to several questioners under which circumstances a GUEST can be contacted by PM. The only logical possibility was that Dave did know the Mudcat name of Canadienne. I didn't know at that time and had never before thought about Canadienne's Mudcat identity. But then I thought if Dave can know so can I. I looked at Canadienne's posting history and within a few minutes I was confident to know who she is. Just BTW, the name clue, "female Canadian", at first pointed to Dianavan, but I gave up that thought quickly)

To the theme of this thread, I think it can be discussed in Mudcat (I had only seen the start of the other thread). The feeling for the parents must be awful, I cannot imagine anything worse.
Victor's approach to this theme, however is totally disgusting.

Americans have a tendency to see "child neglect" much too quickly in my eyes. I know enough parents of my daughter's classmates to say that all of them have at least once violated the Texas rule (never leave a child under twelve alone). My daughter (10) loves it to be alone at home for a time up to 2 hours as long as she knows where we are. German parents are nearly all guilty of child neglect according to Texas standards.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:05 PM

Well said, Dave and thanks for clearing up the PMing thing. I agree with you about the speculative judgements in this thread and their shaky media basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:22 PM

I'm with McGrath 100%. The contents of this thread are nauseatingly revolting(the stuff by the hypocritical anonymous trolls I mean).The sickness of these people who feed on grief is unbelievable.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:46 PM

Back to the original topic:

JTT wrote

I suspect that the parents thought they were in a warm, family-centred, affectionate place where everyone around would take care of their kids, and hiring a sit-in babysitter was over the top.

It may be that their children make strange with people they don't know, and wouldn't sleep with a sit-in babysitter.

The service where a sitter walks around and listens outside the door is obviously superfluous since the parents were checking their own children every 15 minutes.

Under normal circumstances, surely leaving the kids asleep while you snack a few metres away is scarcely child neglect.

You're offering POSSIBLE scenarios through which you then excuse the parental behavior based upon these scenarios. Don't confuse yourself with this stuff. Just look at the facts. They're in a foreign country and they leave their very young children ALONE in a hotel room. Hiring a sit-in babysitter is NEVER "over-the-top" or "superfluous" in a situation like this. Your whole scenario is an apologist approach to an unhappy situation. Frankly, all of the money thrown at this situation just makes it worse. And you suggest that "under normal circumstances" this is okay. It isn't. And these weren't normal circumstances, anyway, so why bring it up?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor, Mapperton Dorset
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:48 PM

More and more people both here and in Portugal are now of the opinion that the McCann's behaviour was, at the very least, negligent and irresponsible in leaving three babies unattended.

Dress as you wish, they committed a crime.

Public expressions of views of this kind are quite new. They are perhaps a post-Diana phenomenon. We simply didn't used to respond so effusively to such crimes as neglect.

Don't get me wrong, I have great sympathy for the McCann family.

But for those who didn't know the McCann family personally, this is where it should have end. The fact so many join in such a public, frenzied, outpouring is stomach turning. Most of the logical posts here are from Americans.

It is almost impossible not to cringe at the thought of just how some have carried on.
few of you acknowledge a crime has been committed by the parents in your rush to join in, and reflect, a national outpouring as intense as any seen since the death of Princess Diana.

I think if your truly honest with yourselves, grabbing this opportunity to connect with others, and to temper your isolation and loneliness is closer to the truth.These are ultimately cries for connection from an atomised populace yearning for company. They demonstrate how desperately in need some are for something to bond over.It is about feeling good, not doing good and illustrates not how altruistic some have become.


A distinction can be made between genuine compassion (which is about others, and which we have seen this month) and conspicuous compassion (which is only about us).

At this time, we should find the honesty to admit it and make a vow to remember it. So the next time some like this occurs, we might put the whole thing into perspective, let their family and friends support them and realise that it's not actually about us.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: greg stephens
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:19 PM

Anonymous trolling in a particularly nauseating and cruel fashion is certainly a post- Diana phenomenon. In those days there weren't quite the same opportunities for self-promotion.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Canadienne
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:33 PM

Much has been said about the media's role in this tragic event - but there can be little doubt that they have been a major contributor to what has been termed mourning sickness; in this type of climate any objective view of "facts" or responsibilites are impossible.

I regret that what I hoped could be an objective discussion here of the distortion of a tragic event by the cynical exploitation of emotions has resulted in such a name calling squabble and amateur detection or "find the lady" game.

Meanwhile we can still retain hope for the child as I would like to think we would for any child whatever their race, religion or creed caught up in such circumstances whether in Portugal or Iraq!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:40 PM

Since the news of Madeleine's disappearance reached Britain people have discussed little else on the Mumsnet website, a forum for parents to discuss childcare issues. 'The first thought of every mum is that we have all done it,' said Justine Roberts, co-founder of the site. She said she had been to Mark Warner holiday resorts and they felt 'like a little cocoon' where nothing could happen. Although parents felt uncomfortable about it, many would go out to dinner and check on their children between courses, she said.

'You calculate the risk, but it is so minute that you are prepared to take it. Of course there is a risk of a freak occurrence, but you don't live your life worrying about a freak occurrence.'

from a GUARDIAN article

I agree with what I have copied. There is no no-risk option, only choices between risks. Even a babysitter can turn out to be a risk for children. Pampering a child may increase the risk that at a later time they don't know how to assess risks by themselves.

Of course, what the parents did was a mistake (looked at with hindsight), but any action (or inaction) should be looked at ignoring outcome knowledge. What the parents did is what happens each day more than ten thousand times yall over Europe.

The parents will torture themselves more than enough with if-only-we-had thoughts, they don't need people to tell them what they did is a "crime". In Germany, I'm sure the parents would not be sentenced.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:50 PM

In my opinion there is only one acceptable place for a parent {or a babysitter} to be while their child is sleeping - and that's within earshot if your child wakes up. If you're not willing to do that then don't have kids in the first place. Then you can go out to dinner whenever you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:53 PM

The media has been mentioned and they don't always get credit for things they do right.

They have played an important part in publicising this and keeping it in everyone's minds. It is because of observations by one journalist that there is a suspect.

The police are focusing on solving this case and that is the priority at the moment; other concerns can be addressed later.

Other parents who have left children in the past (this won't be the first case!) must now be feeling that they are very lucky that it didn't happen to them. Hopefully, it will be a warning to others.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:39 PM

Other parents who have left children in the past (this won't be the first case!) must now be feeling that they are very lucky that it didn't happen to them.

Ah, no. For something not to happen to you which has an extremely low probability you don't have to be lucky. If I read about that poor gal who was killed some years ago by a suicider jumping from a tower I don't think how lucky I was that it didn't happen to me, I rather think how unlucky she was.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:41 PM

Agree, I didn't word it very well!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: dianavan
Date: 16 May 07 - 05:53 PM

This thread is very confusing.

What I want to know is, how old were the siblings that were left with her?

I'm also curious as to why the parents would leave their children alone in Portugal but (presumably) not alone in Britain?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 May 07 - 06:05 PM

The other two children were both 2 years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 16 May 07 - 06:20 PM

That is just plain nuts to leave 2 year olds alone..or 3..one wakes up in a strange place, they wake up the others, start roaming around etc...looking for parents, opening doors, turning on hot water taps maybe...I think it is totally appropriate to express outrage at leaving young children..that is what grownups are supposed to do..let people know when something is horrible so others don't do it..mg

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 May 07 - 06:26 PM

I remember years ago a young child being left without adult supervision and an electric fire was also left on. The child fell on the fire and died. It had such a terrible impact on me that I'll never forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Duplin
Date: 16 May 07 - 07:10 PM

Clearly as the American and Canadian Catters come on they seem to view this thread more objectionably.I admire this. Responsibly MUST be laid firmly at the door of the parents.

Regarding the Mark Warner Resort childcare


They actually offer childcare and lots of child activities.
They particularly mention childcare if you want to dine at Tapas.


"The parents of missing Madeleine McCann left their three children alone in their apartment every night of their holiday because they did not want a stranger to babysit, it has emerged.

Until now, it had been widely believed that the abduction of Madeleine came on the one night that the McCanns had left their children alone.

But Mr McCann's sister, Patricia, a 47-year- old nurse from Glasgow, revealed: "There were eight of them there, all with kids, and every night they went out for a meal without them."


This makes it sound like no one in their group used sitters.

Also
"Madeleine's grandmother, Eileen McCann, 67, added: "They weren't sure about the babysitter service, they just don't like leaving them with strangers.

"It wasn't something they did very often - they have a nanny at home whom they trust."

Surprised they didn't have the nanny travel with them.

Many members wish to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the guilt of the parents on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 May 07 - 03:57 AM

Victor says Dress as you wish, they committed a crime

If this is true they will be arrested, tried and convicted. Until such a time it is only an accusation. Accusations can be made by officers of the law but if made by anyone else and found to be untrue they themselves are guilty of lible or slander depending on the medium. If you are so concerned with the law, Victor, please abide by it.

Again and again this thread is based on rumour, scandal and speculation. Would those involved stop it.

Guest, Duplin. If you admire people who view this thread more objectionably, you must be at the top of the tree. That is probably the most objectionable post since Victors first thread. Go away and continue learning English from the 'Sun'.

Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 May 07 - 07:56 AM

It isn't all based on rumour, scandal and speculation.

Some valid points have been made.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Grab
Date: 17 May 07 - 08:21 AM

Eh? They didn't want a stranger to babysit - so they thought leaving them completely alone was better?! Yes, there are cases where babysitters have abused children. But talk to RoSPA, and by far the biggest danger is unsupervised children injuring themselves because they don't know any better. As much as we might mock parenting classes as being "nanny state", I think this is a family who need teaching on how to look after children.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 May 07 - 08:25 AM

Sorry, eanjay, you are quite right. It is not ALL based on rumour etc. If you read my remark again you will see that I did not say it was.

I did say "Again and again this thread is based on etc etc". I thought it was safe to assume that people would realise that again and again did not mean all the time. Obviously I was wrong and for that I apologise once more.

Happy now?

If people would stick to the facts I would be quite happy but statements like "They committed a crime" is far from fact - It is just speculation until such a time as it is proven. Agreed? If so what purpose does such speculation serve apart from fulfilling morbid curiousity or making the speculators feel 'holier than thou'?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:11 AM

Hi Dave, I did realise after I had posted and I am happy now. Have a good day. Jean

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:40 AM

Wolfgang:

I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Betty
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:10 AM

I have to admit the jogging is very very disturbing

most mothers would be inconsolable and by now on heavy medication..

the more time that passes the stronger they seem to get...it should be the other way around?????

Do you think they have been told by police that they know she is alive???

How can parents even begin to function normally after such a tradgedy?

Everything this couple has done since DAY 1 has disturbed both my husband and myself. Just when you think you have seen it all, hold on to your hats, becuase as sure as day follows night, they will do something else which makes us "weird" normal parents out here put our head in our hands and just watch them in and UTTER sheer disbelief. I repaeat myself.... I have NEVER seen any parents of a missing child acting in the way they have done.. The lies, and all. I am fast becoming lost for words.
Re. them being told she is still alive.... I have said this before... it can be the ONLY explanation to the way this couple are behaving, but, if that is REALLY the case? Then why have they set up this bloody fund?????????????????


one of specifications of allocation is for the "..expenses and requirements of the McCann family"

and thats official!

"Team McCann" as it's now called (previously "team Madeleine") is to be mobilised not just for a spurious search campaign but also the parents' legal expenses.
The upcoming legal defence of the McCanns (re their neglect and endangerment of 3 babies )is to be financially linked with costs of residence and suchlike
The stomach churning horror of all this is just dawning on me.


How do you know the defence is linked in with general expenses? My stomach growling too...

Dave if your as uncomfortable with this thread as you say you are just go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:18 AM

Presumably the costs of an indefinite stay in Portugal are also coming out of the fund.

That is fine because a lot of people have been moved enough to want to contribute and it has been made clear where their money will go.

I won't be contributing.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Just curious.
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:17 AM

I'm not making any judgements here but I'd be interested to know(a) how many evenings had the children been left unattended at the resort prior to the night in question and (b)between what hours. Anyone know?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:31 AM

Daily Mail

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Just curious.
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:54 AM

Thanks, I'd seen that but it's not a full answer- how many nights is that, and what hours is what I'd like to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 May 07 - 12:08 PM

I'm not sure but somebody else may know.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Betty
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:09 PM

They remained with their children the first night they arrived.
After that the group including Mr.& Mrs. McCann were seen out every night without exception.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Just curious.
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:16 PM

OK- but when did they arrive there and what were their typical hours out? In all the hectares of newsprint and days of broadcasting hasn't this emerged?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:31 PM

GUEST,JC, you now have me wondering also but does it really matter?

They repeatedly left three children under the age of four alone for, by their own admission, up to a half hour at a time. Morning, noon or night, I think it is wrong. Maybe attitudes toward this are different on that side of the pond but I find it unconscionable. As I said earlier, this would never occur to me as being acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Just curious.
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:47 PM

Fair question KB and the answer must be no, it doesn't matter- but I'd still like to know nevertheless

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:15 PM

*sigh*

Is it me, or does this thread feel increasingly like a Daily Mail-style witch hunt?

These people have lost their little girl, for god's sake. Unless you've never, ever taken a somewhat stupid or irresponsible decision in the whole of your life, cut them a break and show a little compassion. Judging them, speculating over where the money is going, speculating over whether they're actually guilty themselves - it's nasty and ugly. And I'll bet the most sanctimonious of you wouldn't like a torch shone too deeply into your own lives for strangers to gloat over - we've all made decisions we're not proud of at one time or another. But not many of us will have to live with the consequences for the rest of our lives in quite the way that that child's parents will.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:28 PM

I am not on a witch hunt. In my first post to this thread I expressed my sympathy over their plight. I do feel badly for them. I am just saying that I would not leave such young children by themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:31 PM

Good for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:41 PM

But not many of us will have to live with the consequences for the rest of our lives in quite the way that that child's parents will.

If the "suspect" is in fact innocent then he is also going to have to live with this for the rest of his life.

It has affected a lot of people.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,patty o'dawes
Date: 17 May 07 - 07:10 PM

Both Murat and his Russian associate ( Kaplinka?) need the real culprit caught if they are to resume normal life. Yes, mud sticks and if they are innocent and the culprit isn't caught they will suffer a kind of hell. But nothing compared to that which the Mc Canns are suffering.

The whole story has been a media frenzy, and although the media help keep Madeleine in the publics thoughts, their presence and the tit bits of unsubstantiated 'fact' they throw around brings out the worst in some people.

The consequences of error can be so huge, that finger pointing becomes obscene and I think this is one of them times. It has divided us this side of the pond - the ones who wait for news and the ones who have their knitting ready for the public flogging.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Me
Date: 17 May 07 - 08:55 PM

These people make me sick. They have a tiny child missing due to their own neglect then expect us to pay for their 'EXPENSES' when they wouldn't even fork out for their nanny to go on holiday with them or at least hire a babysitter.

Their home is worth in excess of half a million pound and they take home over £200,000 a year. Surely, they could afford to pay a few more bar bills before calling for public funding!

I hope to God the child is found safe. However, the parenting skills of the Mcanns should be investigated heavily in order to ensure the future safety of all 3 children.

It would appear this sorry situation has been caused by their greed and now that greed for money has been exposed even further by them not wishing to spend a tiny proportion of their wealth in order to STICK AROUND WHILST OTHER PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARD TO FIND THEIR DAUGHTER.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:52 PM

Two words.

Susan Smith.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 18 May 07 - 03:11 AM

Christ almighty.

Loads of people who somehow want to feel involved in something that is patently none of their business and has nothing to do with them could see no other way of demonstrating their support than by chucking money at the case. It was not instigated by the McCanns. What that money will actually be used for is a matter of conjecture, by everyone. If these people "make you sick", don't donate to the fund. Stop reading the acres of newsprint. Just let this couple get on with looking for their daughter without being hung, drawn and quartered. This is trial by tabloid, and if there's anything that makes ME sick, it's the nauseating self-righteousness displayed here by people who are greedily feeding on media half-truths like salacious sharks.

If these issues concern you so very much, get down off your high horses and go and donate some time to a charity that looks after neglected children. Then at least you'll be doing something worthwhile, instead of spouting vitriol at two people who have just suffered the worst loss any parent can imagine.

SRS - Comparing these loving parents, who made one daft and irresponsible decision, and who will suffer for it for the rest of their lives, to a woman who willfully killed her children, is about the sickest thing I've heard in a long time. Well done.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 May 07 - 03:52 AM

Patty O'Dawes (Any relation to to Glazer family?) says it all far better that I have up to now.

The consequences of error can be so huge, that finger pointing becomes obscene

Is one of the best and most succinct phrases I have come across to summarise the situation. I will use it again if I may.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 18 May 07 - 08:57 AM

What that money will actually be used for is a matter of conjecture, by everyone.

The website clearly states what the money will be used for.

That is the right thing to do and then people can make up their own minds whether they wish to contribute or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: shepherdlass
Date: 19 May 07 - 06:31 AM

I can't imagine what they're going through and what self-recriminations they face every day.   But I do suspect that the gloves would have been off if a similar incident had occurred on a council estate with the parents 100-200 yards away in the local working men's club.

This is not to blame the McCanns - I'm sure they were behaving according to the 'norm' of the holiday centre where they were staying, and they just happened to be the unlucky ones. God knows, it's a horrible price to pay. I just wonder at the hypocrisy of some parts of the media who seem to bay for the blood of working class mothers who leave the kids only long enough to nip round to the corner shop.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 19 May 07 - 06:52 AM

Shepherdlass, this point was made on Question Time this week. One of the questions asked was if this had been a poor, uneducated family, would the other 2 children have been removed from the parents' care?

The question wasn't really answered because this is obviously a very sensitive issue.

Other questions about this case were also asked.

People seem to think that the interests of the child are the most important thing at the moment - other issues can be addressed in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 19 May 07 - 06:54 AM

Such a hard one, this. I even have very mixed feelings about whether any of us should even be expressing an opinion at all. But we're supposed to be friends on the mudcat and I guess we're only doing what people all over the UK are doing in discussing this, especially those of us who have children of our own.

I don't want to get into the game of judging or condemning the parents, especially with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. I have my own opinions about their actions but I'm less concerned about that than I am about the nature of the coverage this is receiving.

Much of what we are seeing in the media is not news, but speculation and tabloids vying with each other to appear the most 'concerned'. None of this is going to help recover this poor child (I also have my own opinions about the prospects for that) but I do know that a lot of children are being frightened and disturbed by the comverage and I'm finding that unhelpful, to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 19 May 07 - 06:59 AM

Initially, the media coverage was very important in publicising this and keeping it high profile so that as many people as possible were aware and could be vigilant. However, that point has passed now and even the Portuguese police say that it is not helping their investigation.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 19 May 07 - 07:05 AM

I'm not sure I agree with this:

http://www.anorak.co.uk/news/tabloids/173454.html

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 May 07 - 06:14 PM

After reading the link, I was disgusted. Why would the parents allow their child (the one with the cuddle cat) to be exploited this way? I am feeling nauseated and disgusted. Both parents are intelligent and educated people but their behaviour is very odd. They should know better than to put a second child in the spotlight. What is the point?

Something tells me that there is much more to this story.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 May 07 - 07:34 PM

The creepiness of the media, etc. reminds me of poor little Jon Benet Ramsey...they wouldn't let up and pulled out all the stops to keep on the front page.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 May 07 - 07:43 PM

Ruth,

If you think the police AREN'T considering Susan Smith and Jon Benet Ramsey, and probably in the same breath, so to speak, then you're very naive.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 25 May 07 - 11:42 AM

It's getting ridiculous. Yesterday my 7-yeear old daughter came home with a letter from her headteacher saying that her school were going to be tying yellow ribbons on the gates today and asking children to come in wearing something yellow in return for a 'donation' of 50p to the McCann's fund - which presumably will be used to pay their legal costs when they are charged with child neglect.

It's one thing trying to keep their child's situation in the public eye but it's another thing to try and manipulate other people's children - including mine - to do so.

I am fucking furious.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 25 May 07 - 12:15 PM

It was already ridiculous; it's just getting more ridiculous!

As a teacher I'm used to schools having non-uniform days for well known charities but this is something totally different. IMO it is not appropriate to do this.

One comment on question time was that members of parliament were wearing yellow ribbons for the same reason but nobody was wearing them for missing journalist Alan Johnston.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jeanie
Date: 25 May 07 - 12:35 PM

Chris: In your shoes, I would be angry, too. It is the school's headteacher who I would be angry with. Irrespective of what the money may be used for, the headteacher is manipulating parents into giving to a cause to which they may or may not wish to contribute. "Conspicuous giving" tactics such as this (e.g. non-uniform days; wearing particular colours etc. etc.) leave parents with little choice. All children will want to come to school wearing something different, or doing whatever activity is planned (such as tying the ribbons). Parents do not want their child to be the only one not taking part and feeling humiliated by the teachers and the other children, so the parents believe they must go along with it. This is bullying and manipulation.

Generally, charity events in schools are for causes to which the majority of parents would wish to contribute anyway, such as Red Nose Day, and headteachers are on pretty safe ground in organizing them. This one is more controversial and I think your headteacher is very misguided in assuming all parents would wish to take part.

I hope you will be writing to your Local Education Authority and the Chairman of school governors about this.

- jeanie

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 25 May 07 - 01:02 PM

I would be furious! Do not let this proceed without a fight. Not only are they exploiting your child but they are probably making children more fearful in regards to kidnapping. The McCanns are not a registered charity to my knowlege and even if they were, parents have the right to donate to the charity of their choice. Schools do not get to decide this.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 25 May 07 - 01:27 PM

Today is National Missing Childrens Day 2007 (I think to be renamed Missing Persons Day). A school marking this by collecting for a registered charity to help all missing children (or people) would be another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Scoville
Date: 25 May 07 - 03:28 PM

A three-year-old girl was killed in an apartment fire in Houston yesterday. She and her six-year-old sister had been left alone briefly by their mother and her boyfriend. Mom & boyfriend are facing neglect-by-omission charges. Police think the girl tried to hide from the fire.

I'll say it again: Under no circumstances would I leave children that young alone, anywhere. There are enough things that can happen when you are watching them; why risk what could happen when you're not?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 25 May 07 - 03:37 PM

Thanks for your thoughts. I thought it was just me. As it happens, not many parents or children at my daughter's school seemed to have gone along with this idea today when I picked her up this evening. I suspect many people are also feeling uneasy with the way this is being handled.

I should explain, perhaps, that part of the impetus for this move at our school stemmed from a letter that was also circulated from the head of another local school who also happens to be a godparent to one of the McCann's other children and who, as a friend of the family, is also (presumably) active in the family's campaign.

I am guessing, but while the McCann's are still in Portugal I imagine they are on some form of compassionate leave from their jobs in the NHS and probably still in receipt of their salaries. Fair enough, I certainly don't begrudge them that. But given what doctors earn I think they can manage without my daughter's pocket money.

I also read this evening that the family are expressing annoyance at not being given sufficient information about the progress of the investigation by the Portuguese police. In Portugal the convention is, apparently, that victim's families are kept at arm's length by investigating officers to safeguard confidentiality.   Also, possibly, to avoid jeopardising the investigation by allowing information to pass into the hands of potential suspects.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Jun 07 - 11:53 AM

Unfortunately, it looks as though the poor little girl lost in Portugal may be dead: click here.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 13 Jun 07 - 12:39 PM

There is also an online petition asking Social Services to investigate the parents.

Guardian

I just think the whole thing is so, so sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 14 Jun 07 - 10:02 AM

There's some cold hard people here.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 Jun 07 - 11:38 AM

A different case

Subject: BS: Madeleine mother 'to be suspect'
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 07:02 AM

Kate McCann the mother of missing four-year-old Madeleine has been formally declared a suspect by the Portuguese police.

It is thought she will be made an "arguida". This would allow the authorities to put certain questions and give her the legal right to remain silent.

It is understood that Portuguese police posed 22 questions to Mrs, McCann and were not happy with the answers they received.

Why did she permit two cleaners in to the apartment the morning after they discovered the child was missing ? The apartment received a total "wipe down", something that is normally done after residents leave. Portuguese police are furious about this.

Last month British police brought dogs specially trained in searching for "dead remains" in the apartment.

There was a thread regarding this case here last May which seems to have "vanished". I said in it then the parents were suspect, something I got blasted for. Time will tell.

---

Message moved to existing thread.
-JoeOffer, Forum Moderator-

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: kendall
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 05:04 PM

There was an incident on the news yesterday that was reported involving a Mother who left her 2 year old in a car seat and the temperature reached 120 degrees. Of course the child died. She went to work and spent all day in meetings. The Police chief is not going to charge her, saying she has suffered enough.

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

Funny they never mention the oldest boy Ghengis!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 05:12 PM

My earlier post, with reference to Susan Smith touched a nerve and got an angry response from some. here.

Now it seems it was prescient, after all:

Missing Girl's Mother Named Suspect

PRAIA DA LUZ, Portugal - In a shocking twist, the mother of a 4-year-old British girl missing since May was named a suspect and called in for questioning Friday by police along with the child's father, after traces of blood were found in their rental car. The girl's aunt said police suggested Madeleine McCann might have been killed accidentally and offered the mother a plea deal if she confessed.

Kate McCann was questioned for more than four hours in a second straight day of interrogation into the disappearance of Madeleine in southern Portugal. Her husband, Gerry McCann, followed her into the police station in the southern Portuguese town of Portimao for a separate round of questioning. Friends and relatives said the mother told them she had been named a formal suspect and was offered a deal if she confessed, and that Gerry McCann was told he would likely also be named a suspect.

"They tried to get her to confess to having accidentally killed Madeleine by offering her a deal through her lawyer - 'If you say you killed Madeleine by accident and then hid her and disposed of the body, then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less,'" Gerry McCann's sister, Philomena, told ITV news. A police spokesman, Olegario Sousa, confirmed to The Associated Press that police had named a new suspect, but would not say it was Mrs. McCann. He cited privacy laws in declining to comment further. The couple strenuously professed their innocence Friday.

The day's developments marked a dramatic turn in a case that has pulled at the world's heartstrings for months, ever since Mrs. McCann ran screaming from a hotel room saying her daughter had disappeared. The McCanns, both doctors from central England, said they were dining at the time in a hotel restaurant, but returned frequently to check on Madeleine and her twin 2-year-old siblings.

Since then, the McCanns have toured Europe with photos of Madeleine and the child's stuffed animals and clothing, even meeting with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican. Celebrities including J.K. Rowling and David Beckham made public appeals that helped the family raise more than $2 million. The money, controlled by an independent auditor, is meant for charities that aid in missing children cases.

Until Friday, suspicion had focused on a British man who lived near the hotel from which Madeleine disappeared and who was the only formal suspect. But police said new forensic tests done on evidence gathered months after the girl vanished found traces of blood in the couple's car, according to Justine McGuinness, a spokeswoman for the family. The new evidence - including the traces of blood missed in earlier forensic tests - was uncovered by sniffer dogs brought from Britain.

McGuinness said the police allegations against Mrs. McCann didn't add up, since the rental car had not been acquired until 25 days after Madeleine's May 3 disappearance. Gerry McCann called the allegations against his wife "ludicrous. We will fight this all the way, and we will not stop looking for Madeleine," he wrote on the couple's Web site on Friday.

Even as public opinion reeled from the new allegations, there was fresh criticism of police for taking so long to build their case. John Corner, a McCann family friend, told the British Broadcasting Corp. that the listing of Mrs. McCann as a suspect gave him "an uncomfortable feeling that the police are not looking outward" for Madeleine's abductor.

But Sonya Sceats, an international law analyst at London's Chatham House think tank, said police were allowing the evidence to lead their investigation. "It's all turned on the DNA evidence. It only became available very recently, and they are moving in response to that," Sceats said by phone. Under Portuguese law, formal suspects gain certain legal protections, but police also have more latitude to question them. Police also have to show suspects any evidence against them.

Clarence Mitchell, a family friend and former spokesman for the McCanns, said Friday after speaking with Mrs. McCann that she found the police questioning - which included an 11-hour session Thursday - "grueling. It's very intense, but she's remaining strong and determined to prove that they had nothing to do with their daughter's disappearance and they are innocent victims of the crime," he told the AP.

Asked about a plead deal, Mitchell said: "It is my understanding that during the police interview with Kate McCann, senior police officers told her lawyer that that if she were to confess to killing Madeleine accidentally it would help her case when she came before the judges for sentencing and that they would probably consider a relatively short sentence of three to four years - in other words, a plea bargain."

The McCanns' cause, and the couple's apparent strength in the face of adversity, has hit a nerve among millions, who have followed their lives as they cared for their two other children and went to church in Praia da Luz, the seaside town where Madeleine disappeared, and where they have stayed ever since. Photographs of the bright-eyed, fair-haired girl have been posted throughout the world. The publicity has helped lead to numerous reported sightings of the girl, from as far away as northern Europe and Morocco, amid speculation she might have been taken by an international pedophile ring.

Just after Mrs. McCann entered the police station Thursday, another family representative read out a statement from her appealing to what she called Madeleine's abductors to "do the right thing. It is not too late. Please let her go or call the police," she said.

The only formal suspect until now has been Robert Murat, who lives with his mother near the hotel from which the girl disappeared. He has always maintained his innocence. Sousa said Murat's status as a suspect had not changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 05:14 PM

I was working on this when there were no new entries on this thread, and now I see several ahead of me. Great minds think alike. . .

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 05:26 PM

I for one am fed up with all the speculation and supposition surrounding this case, and feel that it is in effect 'sub judice', and should not be discussed at length in the newspapers and on TV, and even less so on here, when it is not such a live issue in the USA as it is here.
In the UK this case has been in the newspapers almost every day for 4 months or thereabouts, and everybody has an opinion on it, but in reality neither you nor I know the truth. So it ill behoves us to draw conclusions based on information gleaned solely from the media.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 07:00 PM

Ghouls rush in...

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 09:04 PM

I feel many like myself don't like to see people made fools off, fund raising, searching and celebrates making television appeals.

How could any mother leave children so young night after night on their holiday ? As I said before, if they wanted that find of holiday leave the kids at home.

Personally I am convinced she gave all of the children a sleeping aid and this poor children died. I don't think for a moment it was an intentional killing. One Portuguese newspaper reported the police found    the twins were difficult to arouse from their sleep.

No ghouls McGrath, just normal parents who despise people making c**ts out of us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 05:27 AM

That's your opinion, and as such it's better kept to yourself. I for one am not interested in your prurient fantasies.
Giok

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:51 PM

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

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

Precisely. No judgement.

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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 10:34 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 10:36 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 12:56 PM

I disagree.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:27 PM

I do agree with Emma B.

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: 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 - 04:36 PM

I am not talking about the Scottish system

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

Then get your facts right!!!

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 - 04:46 PM

sounds more like "judgements" to me again!

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

Read that and weep

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:48 PM

Family Courts can and do reject recommendations made by Social Workers.   Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Reporting restrictions on Family Courts tend to obscure this.

Social Workers make mistakes. Police officers make mistakes. Teachers make mistakes, Doctors make mistakes. Bus drivers make mistakes. Human beings make mistakes. It goes with the territory.

We can and should try and learn from mistakes, whoever we are. But we're never going to eliminate them entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Sapper on the TRC doing the late shift
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:50 PM

There have been many cases where, acting on "evidence" supplied by Social Workers and other professionals, gross injustices have been perpetrated on innocent families and individuals.
Amongst others the cases of Cleveland, Shieldfield, Pembroke and Orkney come to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:53 PM

I think I may have mentioned Giok that courts are often swayed by incorrect medical evidence?
Yes it IS a tragedy for the individuals as it was for the child who was diagnosed as haveing impetigo when she had been subjected to long term physical abuse and subsequently killed because a care order could not be obtained!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:58 PM

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.

I agree with that.

It is also true of the police and the forensic science service.

On the whole all of these organisations do a very good job and I do have to say that I feel the Portuguese police are also trying to do a good job in what seems to be very difficult circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:13 PM

"Family Courts can and do reject recommendations made by Social Workers. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. Reporting restrictions on Family Courts tend to obscure this."

This is true and the rules of "confidentiality" do not allow for the public to know ALL the personal details - rightly so IMHO! or for that matter the many many more cases that succeed in protecting children from harm.

However, where serious errors of judgement have been made you can be sure that an open and lengthy full enquiry will take place and look at how such mistakes may be avoided in the future. Unlike many other professionals social workers are held open to professional discipline!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:26 PM

After the enquiry into the death of Maria Caldwell we were assured that procedures were changed, and it wouldn't happen again. How many children have died since then?
The usual excuse made for ruining the lives of families wrongly accused of abusing their kids is "Well it's better to err on the side of caution"
I don't know why but names like Timothy Evans leap unbidden to my mind when I hear excuses like that!
giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:29 PM

At the risk of repeating myself yet again......

"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)"

It's nice to have a handy scapegoat for societies and communities ills isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:34 PM

So are you saying that they get it wrong both ways?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:37 PM

I think you're the only person here saying that Giok! Now what would you do in the current case under discussion?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:40 PM

The trouble is that child abusers/neglecters are a bit like people who have addiction problems. There is a lot of covering up, slyness and lying. There are bound to be some mistakes as there are in all professions - look at the mistakes in the medical profession for example, but look at how many people's lives are also saved and the quality improved.

In a lot of jobs the mistakes that happen maybe don't have such serious consequences.

In some professions the responsibilities are not always matched by the pay - but that is another issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:43 PM

True eanjay. We only hear about the failures not the thousands of successes.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:45 PM

They get it wrong both ways, I'd say that too. It's not a perfect world, and it hasn't got perfect people who always do the right thing.

In the current case under discussion, as in every case, the thing to do is find out the facts and examine the evidence and make the best judgement of what to do on the basis of the facts and the evidence. Not speculate on the basis of a mishmash of rumours and guesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:50 PM

At the moment a decision HAS to be made about the twins on the basis that the McCanns have been named as "suspects"

I'm interested in hearing Giok's decision as he is so critical of the Social Services, Child Care courts and expert witnesses ability to make the "right" decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:57 PM

I don't know how this works, but if parents (any parents, not just these particular ones) go to prison do the children get taken into care or can other family members look after them? The reporting here drammatically says that the twins may be taken into care, in these circumstances, but surely there would be other options. After all, if the parents are completely innocent and the remaining children were taken away from them then that would be a gross injustice, although I do feel that they should, in some way, answer for leaving the children alone in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:01 PM

I think Social Services are looking at it from the point that if there are suspicians they need to keep an eye on the twins while the parents are still 'out'.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:02 PM

any more reports on whether the kids were sedated? By injection perhaps? Would that be cause to lose a license to practice medicine? I would hope so. Also, reports of one of the party leaving a three year old vomiting child alone while they dined. It gets more and more bizarre if reports are true...who knows...and we have to be outraged by this...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:05 PM

I would keep my nose out of it, there is no proven case against the parents. That is one of the Social work problems, find people guilty by their lights, and not by the law of this land.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:09 PM

If a parent is even suspected of harming a child - a decision HAS to made upon the evidence available; that's the law and the job of the court and social workers etc Giok!

Now please give us the benefit of your knowledge in this difficult decision

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:13 PM

"if reports are true...who knows..."

And equally "if reports are not true...who knows..."

No doubt in time there will be reports based on actual facts rather than hints and rumours. But that's not the case as yet, and we just don't have a valid basis for making those kind of judgements.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:15 PM

What happened to innocent until proved guilty, You cannot work with such inelastic and unbending rules.
Anyway the legal system under which they have been declared 'arguidos' is a different system altogether, and has different definitions.
There is NO evidence that they have harmed a child!!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:19 PM

The law is there to protect the innocent but bear in mind we have two innocents here that also needs its protection! My gut reaction thinks they are involved but the evidence does seem to be mounting against them.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:20 PM

There is evidence of "neglect" and presumably a "strong suspicion" of harm - I think we have agreed at least that it's possible to make mistakes in such circumstances which are the bread and butter of the Child Protection Courts.

If the courts wait for a child to be killed they can be sure of "guilt" and if they don't they ensure public condemnation.

What's your decision Giok? - someone out there will have to make one.....

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:20 PM

Giok, they have admitted leaving young children alone in an unlocked apartment. It is right that the social services and other professionals are involved since one of those children has not been seen for 4 months as a result of their irresponsible parenting.

Also, the fact that they still seem to defend those actions and imply that we all do it (which we don't) surely means that they could do the same again.

It is right that some action is taken even if they are not directly responsible for the disappearance they do have things to answer for.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:25 PM

To say 'We all do it' is obviously a gross over statement, but it is more common than people would care to admit.
I am not defending this couple, and I am not saying they are innocent, none of us can do that, but this whole scenario seems like a lot of people are ganging up on the McCanns, a thing some people have said they hate.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:28 PM

A lot of people are also ganging up on the police etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:30 PM

Giok you have said a lot here about social workers and the courts - These decisions aren't easy and I've said that mistakes are made.

Now how about you show us how easy it is to make a decision in this case upon the evidence available which is what a court will have to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:30 PM

Isn't that normal?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:31 PM

An example of how a slight misreading of a news story can turn a fuzzy report into a firm allegation. That's what I mean by hints and rumours.

In a BBC story about this datelined Monday, 10 September 2007, 17:33 GMT 18:33 UK, Prosecutor reviews Madeleine case, there was this paragraph:

During an 11-hour interview, detectives suggested to Mrs McCann that traces of Madeleine's blood had been found in the family's hire car, she said.

In an earlier post this was passed on as "The latest news from Portugal matches the DNA of the blood in the car to that of Madeleine", credited to the BBC News.

Not an intentional distortion - but a Chinese Whisper style firming up of a possibility into a firm fact. A statement that in an interrogation a police made a suggestion becomes a firm and potentially damning allegation about firm scientific evidence.

Subject: RE: BSIsn't that normal: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:32 PM

Isn't that normal?

Does that it make it any more right?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:33 PM

Sorry, too many its.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:33 PM

I'm sorry EB but I can't see that there's a shred of evidence to allow an English court to intervene.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:35 PM

Well I don't think you know much about Family and Child Protection Law Giok - so why not just leave it to the folks who do!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:36 PM

Now how about you show us how easy it is to make a decision in this case upon the evidence available which is what a court will have to do.

But we haven't got the evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:38 PM

Why should there be separate laws for different people, and why are the family courts closed. Sorry but the whole thing stinks of dictatorship, and 1984.
Time for my bed anyway, I leave you to argue amongst yourselves.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:39 PM

MGofH

You are right about the distortion of facts and perhaps we should be ignoring all of it at the moment since the Portuguese police have not officially said any of these things, as their laws require.

However, this is a thread on child neglect and the law and a lot of what has been said is not damning allegation but fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:40 PM

Unfortuntely Kevin these decisions HAVE to be made upon incomplete or even debated "evidence" It's often too late when "proof" of harm is established.

There is however irrefutable evidence of neglect in the circumstances in which 3 children under the age of 4 were left alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:41 PM

I agree giok there should not be separate laws for different people but I also know of parents who have children removed when they have left them home alone - and theirs didn't get abducted/killed! But they were poor families on council esteates so obviously they were guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:43 PM

I can't see that there's a shred of evidence to allow an English court to intervene.

Well, I certainly can.


Time for my bed anyway, I leave you to argue amongst yourselves

I don't think the rest of us are arguing, just you.

I'm off to bed too; I'm working tomorrow. Have a good night.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:45 PM

The only person who seems to be argueing here is Giok - and as I haven't heard what decision he would make in these circumstances, although he is quick to criticise those that have to, I shall say "Goodnight" too and be thankful I don't have to write this court report!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:54 PM

A lot of times the problems with dysfunctional families are so blatantly obvious that making the case to remove children for their own welfare is a matter of paying close detail to filling out the forms correctly and following the law the way it is stated to deprive parents of the children who they place in danger.

In the caste system of modern societies, doctors are rated very high in the comptetence, intelligence, and income considerations that would normally be discussed when regarding the fitness to be parents.

Poor or less-well-off parents who break the law in some other way (not child endangerment) generally don't lose their children as a result of their act, unless there is no one who can temporarily care for them or if the one being arrested is the custodial parent. If both parents have been charged, the state will make the move to place them if the parents haven't made such arrangements. Is there a mechanism in place in the process of arresting someone to ask "do you have minor children who depend on you exclusively for their welfare?" Here in the U.S. if parents are being investigated for endangering their children, the kids are at least temporarily moved out of the family home. (Unless they are the children of illegal aliens . . . but that's for another thread.)

If the parents are being investigated in one country and officials in their home country learn of it as is the case here, then it seems that the U.K. should take the logical step to at least temporarily intervene to protect the children. If the parents are cleared, fine, but if the parents aren't such good parents, better to err on the side of the child welfare. Sure they're doctors, but don't be blinded by that caste system (that of course exists, despite protests to the contrary).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:57 PM

Of course there is evidence, there's always evidence - but we haven't got it, and hence we aren't in a position to work out what it indicates, how strong it is, and what is the right thing to do. Fortunately it's not down to us here.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 07:42 PM

Since we've been asked only to stick to the absolute facts - the children were all under the age of 4 at the time!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 07:48 PM

in case anyone didn't see that deleted post from a guest - they were just expressing their concern that 3 children under the age of 5 were left alone for several late evenings

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 09:24 PM

I live in the US and watch very little TV and was totally unaware of this situation. I happened to read in the paper tonight about it and read it aloud to my husband. I am not a child focused human being (can take them or leave them alone!!!!!--although have three kids, now 25, 22 and 18)) but regardless of who did or didn't do anything to the child, HOW CAN IT BE RIGHT TO LEAVE THREE CHILDREN OF THAT AGE ALONE -- IN A STRANGE COUNTRY or in their own homes?????. The poster who indicated his 10 year old enjoyed being home for a couple of hours alone -- 10 years old is not 4 years old!!!! I had a child who - at the age of 3.5 (for various long and complicated reasons) was non verbal. If he was in distress he could not even have verbalized it. Before I saw this thread my husband and I were talking and said -- well, what would we have done -- and we agreed we would have gone out to eat separately and told each other about our pleasurable meals on our return. It cannot be right to leave children of that age alone.....it just can't.....

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 11:46 PM

This was a headline this evening:

Police to Hand Over McCann Case Papers
From Associated Press
September 10, 2007 5:37 PM EDT

ROTHLEY, England - Documents on the investigation into the disappearance of 4-year-old Madeleine McCann won't be given to Portuguese prosecutors by police until Tuesday, and her parents waited at their British home to see if they would be charged.

Portuguese police had been expected to hand-deliver to prosecutors on Monday the results of their investigation into the girl's disappearance May 3 from a hotel in southern Portugal. Police named Kate and Gerry McCann as suspects Friday.

But police spokesman Olegario Sousa said the prosecutor would not receive the case until Tuesday, and he declined to provide further details, citing Portugal's secrecy law covering ongoing investigations.

Portimao District Attorney Jose Cunha de Magalhaes e Meneses will then review the case files, which contain details of forensic evidence and police interviews with the parents.

The McCanns, who returned to Britain on Sunday with their 2-year-old twins, kept a low profile Monday, avoiding reporters camped outside their home.

[snip]

This isn't from a durable link, but I'm sure the same story is appearing all over by tomorrow morning. One suspects that if forensic evidence becomes available, this story will explode out of the water again.

I repeat once again: Susan Smith may have a bearing on this case.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 12:30 AM

"It cannot be right to leave children of that age alone.....it just can't..... "

It bloody well isn't right to leave kids at that age alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 04:36 AM

"The only person who seems to be argueing here is Giok - and as I haven't heard what decision he would make in these circumstances, although he is quick to criticise those that have to, I shall say "Goodnight" too and be thankful I don't have to write this court report!"

Read my reply at 06:05 EB.

If social workers have the right to intervene based on suspicion alone' which leaves the door open for malicious informants, how come there are so many children already under SS surveillance, that are killed and harmed by their parent or guardian?
I am also glad you don't have to write the report on this one, as your mind is obviously made up already.
Did you hear the news this morning BTW?
Read this and try to realise why I am worried by this kangaroo court we seem to have here.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 04:54 AM

The Law in Scotland for Family Proceedings is somewhat different from England.

A report in The Scotsman today stated -

"The Local Government Association explained that in England, if an individual is named as a suspect overseas, local social services have a duty to consider whether action has to be taken to ensure other children's welfare.

Asked if it was likely that children in such cases were taken into care or placed on the "in need" or "at risk" register, the LGA said it depended on the circumstances"

I think that SRS has pointed out that these parents belong to a different "caste system" as the unsupported single parent from the council estate and in addition they have an expensive and effcient media machine behind them. It seems likely that these pressures will dictate the "circumstances" quoted above but nevertheless the decision HAS to be made.

I refute the suggestion that "MY" mind is made up on this case - I have quoted only the legislation as it applies to this country (and IMO should also apply to this family) and attempted to explain the dilemma facing the social workers in these circumstances against almost rabid judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:13 AM

"That is one of the Social work problems, find people guilty by their lights, and not by the law of this land." quoted at 6.05

The hearing is NOT about detirmining the guilt or innocence of the parents, that will be heard in a seperate court. The Local Authority has an absolute duty in law to consider the welfare of children in instances of neglect or serious allegations of harm to that child or other children in the same household.

I have no idea whether this family has caused harm to Madelaine or not but I can only deduce from their negligent actions, during that tragic holiday, that they are not the "resposible" parents you seem to have decided at the beginning of this thread and which "judgement" you continue to defend.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:33 AM

I'll copy again what I put in at the beginning of this thread.

"English law does not specify an age when a child can be left unsupervised. However, parents may be prosecuted for neglect if they leave a child alone "in a manner which is likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health" (Children and Young Persons Act, 1933).

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) advises that no child should be left alone under the age of twelve, or overnight under the age of sixteen. Even a short stretch without a parent or another adult around can be distressing and lonely for a young child. Most eight to thirteen year olds, even if they feel happy about being left, may not be ready to cope in an emergency."

The advice goes on to state that you should "Never leave a baby or toddler alone, even for a few minutes. There are many dangers in a house for an unsupervised child. Leaving a child who is asleep is not a good idea, either - he may wake up and try to come looking for you. Also, being alone in the dark can be terrifying for a small child."

From the Bupa Health Information website.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: sapper82
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:36 AM

There appears to be a lot of concern with regard to the way children are being taken for compulsory adoption via the Family courts, particularly with respect to the secrecy with these courts operate.
It appears that the evidence, upon which these courts operate, is planned out by Social Services in case conferences where all too often that parents concerned have no knowledge of what is going on, no right of representation, no information on the matters disacussed and no right of appeal.
This is compounded by the immense wall of secrecy surrounding the entire Family courts system.

MP bids to lift secrecy in family courts

System taking hundreds of babies for adoption

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:55 AM

The sad case quoted in the link you gave Sapper concerned medical evidence of fractures being received by the court as irrefutable evidence of "abuse"
Where strong suspicion of harm is received from medical, police or educational sources the Social Services are required to consider action; whether this is accepted as "evidence" of harm or risk is the decision of the court.

Of course professionals make mistakes as eanjay has already allowed but, for example, this sort of medical error not mean that ALL doctors are "bad" and the Health Service should be scrapped.

I think that we have seen enough examples of "free reporting" in the McCann case to understand why some degree of confidentiality (I wish people wouldn't use perjorative headline grapping terms like "secrecy") is used in Family Proceedings.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: sapper82
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 06:05 AM

Another link of possible abuse of powers by Social Services

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 06:08 AM

What we seem to have in the UK is child rearing by legislation, and not by love or common sense.
The state interferes too much in all our daily lives, and many parents don't know where they stand.
I abhor the whole 'interference culture' that seems to have become such a growth industry.
I also cannot see what book learning and case studies can teach you about life. Only living can do that, Social work theories are just that, theories, they bear little relation to realities in many cases.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: sapper82
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:01 AM

From a small amount of browsing and googling, I have found a wealth of news reoprts, websites and pages attesting to a serious problem of an abuse of power by officials in the Child Care industry.
This is made worse by the almost total lack of secrecy of proceedings within the Family courts.
Couple this to the well publicised and tragic cases where the Social Services have, often by neglect of duty, failed to protect a child.
I think there is enough evidence for a serious enquiry to be made into the workings of the Social Services of this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:09 AM

There certainly is evidence for a major enquiry... trouble is, we all know what the results should be already.

Not enough staff, not enough facilities, not enough training, not enough pay.

Legislations and procedures have changed so dramatically recently that someone who worked in the service 4 years ago would be totally out of their depth if they returned to work today.

It's the same all over.

LTS

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

Sapper you can't simply state that parents all too often have no knowledge of what is happening in Case Conferences and then post a link to where they secretly recorded selective extracts from one where they most obviously did, - oh sorry, yes you can!

The professionals involved in these cases whether teachers, police, health workers or Social Workers are, unlike the parents, bound by rules of confidentiality and are therefore unable to answer back to these highly publicized and emotional "appeals" to a public which does not have the details of the circumstances.

As I've said before the effects of the press investigating personal lives (such as the first suspect in the McCann case who was compared with the convicted double child killer Ian Huntley) can be horrendous to all concerned and, it is with just cause, that the most recent enquiry into the reporting of Family Proceedings came down heavily on defending the anonymity of the children involved

In the case you give a link to the article linked to goes on to say -

"The council does not take lightly any recommendation to the court for a child or a baby to be brought into care. The decision whether or not to institute care proceedings is made by social workers who have to consider the best interests of the child."

There is no suggestion in this report which states that the Social worker would request an "Interim Care Order" (although the outcome would rely upon the judge's decision) that "compuslory adoption" is a consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:27 AM

The rules of confidentiality in Family Courts are dictated by the legal system of this country and not by any Social Services department.

eanjay posted
"The trouble is that child abusers/neglecters are a bit like people who have addiction problems. There is a lot of covering up, slyness and lying"
and Liz pointed out that
"Not enough staff, not enough facilities, not enough training, not enough pay."

I wouldn't argue with either of these two observations - they form a dangerous combination. There have been tragic mistakes made and subsequent well publicized enquiries.

At the end of the day there is no "Child Care Industry" just a number of over worked paid servants struggling to make the best decisions for the welfare of children the COURTS judge to be "at risk" often in an atmosphere of public scorn and limited or incorrect information.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 07:46 AM

"Portuguese police today denied a report that they had found a perfect DNA match for Madeleine McCann in a sample of body fluids taken from a car hired by her parents 25 days after her disappearance.

But a source close to the investigation told The Times that forensics experts had found a surprising amount of Madeleine's hair in the hired Renault Scenic" From TimkesOnlione

Not quite the same as ""The latest news from Portugal matches the DNA of the blood in the car to that of Madeleine".

....................

No one is denying that it was foolish for the parents to leave their children alone while dining in another building 70 yards away, relying on popping back from time to time to check on them. But that is the kind of foolish mistake which a very large number of parents have made in their time, for example eating downstairs in a hotel while their children are up in their room.

And in most cases, of course, nothing bad happens, and nobody ever hears about it, and very likely the parents even forget all about it, the way we forget about all kinds of foolish things we have done in our time. In itself that would never be seen as sufficient to justify removing children from the care of parents. No social worker would ever recommend it, no court would accept it if they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:07 AM

Four children, one annual holiday a year for 16 years and NEVER ONCE did my wife or I EVER leave the children alone on holiday or at home.


"dining in another building 70 yards away, relying on popping back from time to time to check on them", nice trivialisation McGrath of H.

"Drinking and dancing until 2.00am" was the eye witness reports from other British holidaymakers there at the time.

I repeat, if they wanted that kind of holiday, then leave the kids at home.

(They declined the resorts child minding services).

The truth will out.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:12 AM

The truth will out.

I very much hope so, and am quite prepared to wait until it does before I feel any justification for coming on all judgemental.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:13 AM

By and large I agree with you Kevin. However while one instance may be regarded as "foolish" long term neglect of this kind would be not.

My purely personal opinion is that the McCanns were grossly irresponsible in their decision not to take advantage of the readily available babysitting services and a little less than truthful about the actual number of evenings and time that the children were left alone, the distance from the late night bar and the frequency of "checking - up"

The Times online web site also gives one of the least lurid and objective analysis of "the key questions" - although one of the most sensible articles about the dangers of the media coverage I have come across is by Lauren O'Hara writing in the Cyprus Mail

...."Everyone wants Madeleine home safe, but she along with her family is in danger of being iconised in the same way as Princess Di and the higher people are elevated the further they have to fall. Now the McCanns are asking to be left alone, but it was their decision to exploit the media. They did not retreat quietly to devote themselves to the welfare of their two other children while the authorities were allowed to investigate. Personally, I might feel very insecure keeping my children in a place where I suspected a paedophile ring was operating. I'd want my other two kids out of the situation: safe and sound.

A senior police officer the other day told me that he felt that the investigation had been seriously hampered by the media attention. In fact, it could have put Madeleine's life at risk. Who would want to come forward to face this media circus with information? We have no idea yet of the outcome of the McCann case, nor can anyone have an idea of innocence or guilt without being party to the forensic information. But trial by tabloid is not the answer. It's a salutary warning. If, God forbid, it ever happens to someone we know or love it must make us wary of letting the paparazzi Pandora out of its box."

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:32 AM

Nor yet trial by Mudcat!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:47 AM

Heavens!! for a while I believed that Social Workers or anyone who didn't share the media's blatently biased reporting were "on trial" here!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 09:33 AM

an alternative way of discussing social work intervention ?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 09:37 AM

I don't share a belief in the media's biased reporting. I merely objected to people ganging up on the McCanns based on little or no evidence.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:02 AM

An objective consideration of all the known facts around the occasions that all the children were left unattended in an unfamiliar environment, their ages at the time and what the position of the law was the purpose of this thread.

The "circus" which followed exploited the media and the public's sympathy and drew attention away from any parental irresponsibility.

There was no attempt on my part to "gang-up" on the McCanns but I would have been very happy to deflect and expose their expensive and skilled publicity machine (not to mention the "dubious" Limited Company) which totally ignored any parental short comings and hurled suspicion and blame (including details of personal officers) onto the investigation - and instead focus upon the real "victim" in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:03 AM

From days of old, it has generally been acknowledged that "History is written by the winner."

In the day of the Internet, what seems to pass for some of you as history is "written" by anyone who has access to a keyboard and can post a few spurious links.

From a small amount of browsing and googling, I have found a wealth of news reoprts, websites and pages attesting to a serious problem of an abuse of power by officials in the Child Care industry.
This is made worse by the almost total lack of secrecy of proceedings within the Family courts.
Couple this to the well publicised and tragic cases where the Social Services have, often by neglect of duty, failed to protect a child.
I think there is enough evidence for a serious enquiry to be made into the workings of the Social Services of this country.

Do you believe everything you read on the Internet? Who is likely to post their account, someone who is content with the outcome of a case, or someone who is unhappy? Justly convicted or not, the complainers are going to post the lion's share of reports. All things aren't equal any more, and to suggest that these social services are just waiting to pounce on innocent families and that social workers can't tell the difference between a mean-spirited nasty report by a disgrunted person lodged against a parent from a case of serious child endangerment is ludicrous.

Yes there are child welfare workers who are overworked and undertrained. And they're not perfect. If you have such strong opinions about the system, perhaps you should become engaged and become a foster parent. It's the least you can do.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:08 AM

Many people want to become foster parents but can't jump through all the hoops that Social Services demand before approving their application.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be thoroughly checked, but I have heard some pretty petty reasons given for refusing to let people's name go forward.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:09 AM

I really don't want an argument over this, but the nationwide Portuguese police search for the child is over.

They no longer organise search parties.

The poster campaign organised by the families in England in which they send reams of posters to ex pats living in Europe has also ended.

On one can condone the actions of these two people in leaving such young children alone ( no matter how some members here appear to trivialise this by saying "they were only 70 yards away" at 2.00am in the morning).

I started a thread two days after the child went missing in which I said there was something not quite correct about the parents in their responses and body language which was deleted.

I have been posting on this thread since May, and I remain adamant that the parents know a lot more about the case than they care to admit to. Am I being judgemental ? Yes I am.

Why ?

Because a beautiful child has vanished and the parents reactions from the very first day was cold and non responsive.

The friends who were on holidays with them immediately distanced themselves from the McCann's.

They allowed people to donate time and money to their campaign and watched a continental wide search search get under way and seemed to enjoy the media attention.

I have a close friend who's sisters child was abducted in the early seventies (thankfully returned) and she said how could anyone in that position sit calmly in front of a tv camera and hold her composure and visit a hair stylish two days after the child went missing ?

In her words " I threw up everything I ate, my personal hygiene was a disgrace and I hadn't the strength in my legs to stand up".

I doubt I will stand to be corrected when the full truth of this matter comes out, and it will.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:28 AM

Guest Victor
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 07:02 AM
Is that your missing post?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Regular member
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 10:43 AM

Some years back I took two kids (about three and eight years old) out of a building that was on fire. The parents had left them alone with the family dog for protection. Just ask me what I think about little kids being left to fend for themselves, then ask what I think of parents who would do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 11:09 AM

Nor yet trial by Mudcat!

I have seen no evidence of that in any of these posts.

Remember, the thread is about child neglect - the apartment was closer to the swimming pool than the tapas bar; certainly not "like being in your own garden" - well certainly not in my own garden.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: jacqui.c
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 12:02 PM

No child of those ages should be left alone for any length of time. There appears to be no doubt that the parents left the children unattended and for that I would hold them at least partially responsible for whatever happened to the little girl.

I agree with SRS about the caste system - IMHO these parents, both of whom are doctors and would therefore be seen as intelligent and responsible in their professional lives - should have carried the same virtues over into their family life. Anyone who takes on the extreme responsibility of caring for a child should make that responsibility the most important thing in their lives. In this case the parents' selfish and irresponsible behaviour makes me shudder. These were people who could well afford to employ a babysitter but didn't. How long would it take for a child to die in a fire, or to fall into the swimming pool if it woke up and went looking for its parents? The psychological damage that can be done to a young child waking up in a strange place to find its parents not there and that it took quite a while, in a child's perception, for Mummy or Daddy to get to them should have been considered and these were parents who supposedly were intelligent enough to be able to think about the dangers of their actions.

I ain't going to comment on their guilt or innocence in respect of the disappearance of the little girl - that's for the Police and the courts to sort out. All I will say is that no parent who really cares about their children should behave in the way that these two did.
Whether they left the children for an hour or the best part of the night they were WRONG.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 12:12 PM

No John, I don't have a missing post, I started a thread in early May in which I cast doubt over the innocence of the two McCann's and it was deleted, that was what I was referring to earlier. No I started a thread on the 7th of September as I couldn't find this thread and Joe moved it onto it for me.
Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 12:16 PM

OK, just wondered, as you said a couple of days ago, and I noticed that one had been inserted.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 12:53 PM

My thoughts too

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 01:27 PM

What a shame eanjay that it takes a reporter from the other side of the world to speak out against the "sanctification" of the team McCann.

a small extract ....

"Across Europe, many children go missing everyday but no case has received the amount of coverage the McCann disappearance has generated.

Yet, despite every micro detail of the events leading up to the disappearance being scrutinised, there has been virtually no critical analysis of how two wealthy, well-educated parents could be so reckless as to leave their children alone in a foreign country.

Instead, the bleeding hearts would have us believe many parents regularly do this without any such consequences."


I strongly urge people with open minds to read the rest and note the major questions that are ignored by the home grown newspapers.

This is a well written article and makes me ashamed of the almost universal highly emotive and exploitative nature of the British press and other media.

Although the BBC have criticised other radio stations for continual use of first names when referring to the parents making them more "intimate" to listeners they contiue to do this and still refer to the paid professional spin doctor as a "family friend"

Where is the investigative journalism that should be looking into the use of the donations so freely given by people with far less income than the McCanns? Why does the Limited Company only allow for funds to be used to aid similar cases IF Madeleine is returned safely to her parents?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 02:09 PM

getting worse

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 02:12 PM

I would also add that the family are continuing the fund raising.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 02:19 PM

I had checked out the directors of this company too eanjay! but this is the first time that I've seen any reference to their relationships with the parents in the press.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:06 PM

Tax that "fund" as income. That's what it has become.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:39 PM

It's a limited company, that means that they are required to submit accounts to HMRC. They will be taxed at the rate approprate to their income.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 05:40 PM

They were trying to see if there was a way round paying the tax.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 06:41 PM

there is little to stop the McCanns using the money for legal fees.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: kendall
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 09:44 PM

They have every right to defend themselves. They had NO right to leave small children alone to go partying.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 06:03 AM

I would not deny anyone the right to defend themselves on a charge of filicide.

The parents have certainly chosen a skilled lawyer who suceeded in getting General Pinochet released from arrest and extradition to Spain on a charge of murder, torture and kidnapping (even being awarded £350,000 legal costs) in 1998

However such lawyers do not come cheap and there is a "fund" of a million pounds that was collected by donations from sympathetic people on a crest of highly emotional publicity under the stated objective -                                                                     "To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;      
and
"To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family."
- IF Madeleine was found the remainder of the money was to be used to assist in other cases of abduction.

As this large "fund" is classed as a buisness (the form in which it was set up was not acceptable to be classed as a "charity") and the directors are personal friends or family of the McCanns it appears that it may be possible to use the money that well meaning donors thought would be used to assist in the search for Madeleine and other missing children to pay for the most expensive "celebrity" laywers.

I appreciate that anyone who was not in the UK during the engendered mass emotional reaction whipped up by the McCann publicity machine might not realize how great a "betrayal" the donors may feel if the money they thought was for charitable purposes is used in this way.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 06:19 AM

a grimly compelling story that will end badly for us all (opinion article from the GUARDIAN)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 06:20 AM

Everybody has a right to defend themselves.

There are now 3 top lawyers involved.

People were led to believe that eventually any remaining money would be used for other less publicised cases. This appears to be becoming a "big" case. It is possible that every penny of the fund will be needed for costs.

Should guilt be proved could charges of fraud follow?

Please note that I am not accusing anybody of anything. These parents may be completely innocent; I sincerely hope they are. Hopefully, the truth will eventually be found. I do however feel that there definitely is a case to answer for child neglect and whatever the outcome of the police investigation into other things I, for one, am very pleased that Social Services are involved - that is the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: kendall
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:03 AM

They may be innocent of killing their baby, but they are guilty of neglect.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:23 AM

If anything stirs up the emotions of the British public it is harm coming to a child.

As a nation we despise deception and being taken for a fool.

If there is one thing we don't stand for, it's being conned out of money !

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:50 AM

a skilled lawyer who suceeded in getting General Pinochet released from arrest and extradition to Spain on a charge of murder, torture and kidnapping

guilt by association

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:52 AM

a skilled lawyer who suceeded in getting General Pinochet released from arrest and extradition to Spain on a charge of murder, torture and kidnapping

He too knew people in the government!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:01 AM

guilt by association

I don't think the implication was of guilt.

I took it to mean that if they are hoping to use other people's money then perhaps they could choose somebody a little bit cheaper.

Equally, some people may ask why a laywer who is an expert in extradition is needed. We all know that they are happy to return to Portugal the minute they are asked to.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:24 AM

It has just been announced on the news that the fund will not be used for legal costs.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:08 AM

"The couple risk a public backlash if the board controlling Madeleine's fund hands over the cash to shell out for a £500-an-hour legal team." - from today's news

yes Wolfgang they are expensive and very skilled in the laws of extradition - it was widely believed at the time of his arrest that Pinochet would/should have been extradited to Spain to face charges of abduction and murder against named individuals including a United Nations diplomat

I didn't contribute to the Leave no Stone Unturned Limited company but I hope that the people who did will eventually see their donations used for the charitable purpose they were led to believe they would be

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Ozwart
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:09 AM

Not necessarily guilt by association. Nuremberg Trials come to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:23 PM

new fund?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:27 PM

Nuremberg Trials come to mind

I find that a very strange and extreme statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Black Hawk unlogged
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:53 PM

Without giving an opinion of guilty or not of any wrongdoings I find some of the McCann actions/statements strange.

I have never been involved with the police or criminal investigators but have always understood that in cases of murder,abuse, assault etc. the immediate suspicion falls on close family then friends, business partners etc. (I admit most of my understanding is from TV shows, magazines etc. - some factual)
This being the case, how can Mr McCann in his 'blog' state that he never thought they would be classed as suspects.
This is a highly intelligent person in a prominent position who says this had not even crossed his mind.
His must be the only mind it has not crossed, even those on this site who are defending him must have considered it, even if just to reject the idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 01:00 PM

I'd urge people to read the article to which Wolfgang posted a link - and especially the last paragraph, which seems to me to sum up the situation pretty well:

How will this story end? That's what makes it so grimly compelling: none of us knows. Until we do, basic justice demands that we presume the McCanns are wholly innocent. Common decency demands the same. For if they are eventually found guilty, there will be plenty of time for condemnation. But if they are innocent, to presume otherwise is to commit a second crime against people who have already suffered enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 01:05 PM

We're allowed to look at the facts as reported though, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 01:23 PM

We're allowed to look at the facts as reported though, right?

I'm really glad you've said that because that is all that is being done here. I was about to post something very similar myself.

Nobody is suggesting they are guilty of anything other than child neglect despite some implications to the contrary.

Some of the comparisons used for posters who are concerned are distasteful, but of course that is OK!

Some people forget that intelligent people do ask questions and its only because people have voiced concerns about fund money being used for legal costs that now it will not be.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 01:43 PM

Nobody is suggesting they are guilty of anything other than child neglect despite some implications to the contrary.

Nobody? You must have read a different thread.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 02:19 PM

I disagree. I think when the safety of children is concerned, you have to err on the side of their welfare, and you have to soundly be outraged, and express your outrage, at the danger they put those children in..not counting abduction, pedophilia etc..just scalding themselves or getting wedged in furniture...

And you have to go after professionals with the same vigor you would go after a crack mother... no free ride for doctors. You have to be intolerant of these situations and you have to let the world know so that other people don't get the bright idea that they can, as is said to have been done by one of their party, leave a vomiting 3 year old alone...oh but we checked on her...I remember a child in Maine whose mother went out to drink..he was 4 years old, went to look for her in the 10 foot high snowbanks...was found wandering around...

And there are not two scenarios: them totally innocent and them brutal psychopaths. There are all sorts of situations in between that could have occurred. I think the best outcome would be some lonely childless woman took her and thinks she is her daughter and will give her back. That is a chance of about 1 in a million. I think the next best scenario is that there was an accidental overdose and that she died painlessly because some of the other possibilities are too awful to contemplate. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:05 PM

There are lots of scenarios, and there are people who have the duty to investigate them and to act on the basis of the evidence they find.

We aren't those people. It';s not our duty ti rush to judgement, and we don't have the facts to enable us to do so responsibly. Clearly the parents acted foolishly in leaving their children alone, and that should be a lesson to all of us. But that's as far as it goes.

The quote "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" comes to mind.

Still, I suppose there are those who would feel that this would entitle them to start pitching stones. Selective memory of the mistakes we have made ourselves is a wonderful thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:14 PM

I can't go back and read this huge thread but to my memory, one person thinks that evidence will (eventually) come out to show that at least one of the parents was complicit in harm to Maddie.

One person believes that the designation as suspects should be used as a point of consideration by UK social workers, in addition to the negligence/endangerment by leaving them alone.

Virtually(?) everyone agrees that the evening alone was inappropriate, but disagree as to the severity of the error and the appropriate "consequences."

The thread's not all that dramatic, really.

Subject: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:18 PM

The thread's not all that dramatic, really.

Agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:19 PM

.............. and I have read it all!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:28 PM

The word is not "foolish"!
The continual leaving of 3 young children under the age of 4 alone for several nights in a strange environment for no other reason than partying with friends when alternative arrangements were readily available is nothing but "neglect"!

I have nothing but sympathy for any parents who have lost a child, I even have sympathy and understanding for parents driven to infanticide by circumstances which fortunately I've never had to experience; but, I simply cannot accept the "apologists" who think this behaviour is acceptable!

Other people have pointed out that an unsupported mother without this couple's advantages who left her children in this way would have to face the statutory Child Protection proceedure. Like mg I see no reason why these parents, however much their profession is held in deference should be above censure.

I'm also appalled by the whole publicity machine manipulated by the parents which, without any doubt, has made any investigation into whoever is responsible extremely difficult and I fear that "the truth" will never out.

I have read your link Wolfgang and I've also read the posts on the forum which commented on it, many people there share the views that have also been expressed here.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:34 PM

The same Child Protection procedures will be activated in this case as in that of any other parent in analogous circumstances. And those procedures don't involve us. And I sincerely hope that any Social Workers involved will refuse to gossip or leak about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:40 PM

Kevin, I think you can be absolutely sure of that.

It's one of the main reasons why I support wholeheartedly the recent decision to retain confidentiality in Child Care Proceedings.

I think we've seen far too much press speculation and bias, distortion of facts and undermining of personal lives of investigating officers in the last 4 months.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:41 PM

People who ask for our money, hire a PR firm and enlist support from Beckham and the Pope are not asking us to leave them to their privacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 03:52 PM

And those procedures don't involve us.

I don't think that anybody is suggesting that they do.

It has taken a long time for Social Services to become involved; that is the worrying thing. When that was welcomed there was an immediate "slagging off" of Social Services. There are a lot of ordinary people who work there who do a very good job and it is not fair to make such sweeping statements.

Despite the fact that the parents are desperate to have their child back, they really have hindered this investigation. Perhaps it's just due to distress that they have done some unhelpful things like washing cuddle cat only days after the disappearance, but they do seem to have been able to keep a level head where financial matters are concerned.

I agree with guest,mg. Hopefully an abductor will return the child - although they may feel that they can do a better job of the parenting!

The trouble is that whilst some abducted children do get found or returned, a lot do not. I think that that is why people want something to be done. The child has to be the main consideration. Perhaps now the parents will use the fund money for private detectives in the hope that she will be safely found.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 04:05 PM

"I think you can be absolutely sure of that." But it doesn't appear to have been true in the case of some people in the police in this case or in many others.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 04:09 PM

I seriously have wondered if the police "leaking" could have been deliberate to see reactions - they did get a "cracker-type" person in.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 04:26 PM

McGrath of Harlow, we appear to be at odds over this matter, time will prove me right or wrong in my clear opinion that the mother of this child administered a fatal dosage of sedation so they could enjoy the party scene into the small hours of the morning with friends. I remain firm on that since my deleted thread of the 6th of May.

Regarding your remark

"I suppose there are those who would feel that this would entitle them to start pitching stones".

This is only a discussion forum, a place where friends can discuss, debate and express their thoughts and feelings.

Maybe your remark could be pinned to the bottom of the numerous threads on the rights and wrongs of invading Iraq ?
The policies of the British or American governments in regard to health care, smoking in public or hanging Saddam ?

They are all just opinions that's all. As my father used to say " opinions are like anal passages" everybody has one.

By the way, that reference is to myself, not you.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 04:39 PM

Nobody is suggesting they are guilty of anything other than child neglect (eanjay)

I repeat once again: Susan Smith may have a bearing on this case.
I repeat, One of the McCann's knows what happened that poor child which makes them both guilty of the crime.

Well, eanjay, you state you have read all of the thread. Curious.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 04:46 PM

Hi Wolfgang,

You are right of course but you know what I meant!

My use of nobody was really no different to the use of words that imply that we are all like a "lynch mob" - not my words, but you'll know that because like me you have clearly read all the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 04:51 PM

And my point is "GUEST, Victor" is that even if you did turn out to be correct in your speculations, you'd have been wrong to arrive at a judgement and express it in that way in advance of having a lot more information than you have at this point.

Once again, from that article Wolfgang linked to:

... none of us knows. Until we do, basic justice demands that we presume the McCanns are wholly innocent. Common decency demands the same. For if they are eventually found guilty, there will be plenty of time for condemnation. But if they are innocent, to presume otherwise is to commit a second crime against people who have already suffered enough.

Common decency.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 04:59 PM

I feel that if the fund could pay for some really good private detectives then if the child was found it would put a stop to speculation.

The parents may feel now that that is a good idea and could prove innocence if that is the case.

I do think that in the interests of the child more needs to be done than posters and balloons and there certainly is enough money for more to be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 06:25 PM

If I may ask some questions:
-Did the McCanns have a car on the night of Maddie's disappearance?
-Was it UK sniffer dogs who reacted to the mom?
-When did they do that?
If I read correctly, UK dogs detected scents in a car, leading to DNA finds in a car, which finds had been previously missed by Portugese police. Again, -when were they (UK dogs) there, and -is there only one car at issue in this entire affair?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 06:26 PM

I would think it quite likely that that is already being done, sub rosa.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 06:29 PM

That last post of mine was a response to eanjay's previous one.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 07:13 PM

If all this stuff is so secret secret under Portugese law why do they release just those two dog tidbits in a vacuum. Really a vacuum.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:14 PM

I found Kendall's comments very much on point -- no one is condemning these people of actual harm to the child (lthough a few folks have expressed opinions that do not seem totally out of line considering what has been reported ...) but the vast majority - as I read it - do condemn leaving children of that age alone. Like Victor, and like most parents I am sure, we NEVER left our children alone at these ages or anything close to it.........; even though the eldest babysat other people's children and had her Red Cross cert from about the age of 12 we didn'r feel comfortable with her babysitting her siblings because of authority issues. When she babysat other people's kids -- we were a phone call away. That is why empty nesting is so fabulous..............you can taste the freedom when you finally CAN go out and not worry about the ones left at home......

I don't think this statement is 'casting the first stone' -- everyone of us has probably left a child in the car while they raced into the store to get milk or something like that -- but to go so far away from them and in a strange environment for the children......NO! Having said all this my heart bleeds for everyone concerned in this mess....if the parents were involved in any way, their guilt and pain must be agonizing; if they were not involved directly (but I think indirectly has to be a given) their pain and guilt must be agonizing......there are no winners here.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 06:58 AM

everyone of us has probably left a child in the car while they raced into the store to get milk or something like that And children have been kidnapped, and even murdered in just that kind of situation.

Again, how many basically good parents have on occasion travelled in a car with a child on their lap, or not strapped in. How many have smoked cigarettes in the presence of children? Or left something dangerous lying around where a child could have got hold of it?

Parents make mistakes. Sometimes those turn out to be disastrous in their consequences mistakes. Very often when they don't we forget all about them, and even pride ourselves on not having made them as all.

Mistakes made by other people should be a reminder to us to be more careful ourselves, and to encourage other people to be more careful. But they shouldn't be an occasion for finger-pointing and denunciations.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 07:32 AM

"Aplogist" words like "mistakes" and "foolish" don't really apply to this situation.

A professional couple left three children under the age of 4 alone in a strange insecure environment for several nights while they partied with friends despite alternative sitting arrangements that they could easily afford being readily available. At the very least this behaviour was certainly grossly irresponsible and could be defined as neglect.
Their subsequent "explanations" for their behaviour were riddled with inconsistencies and half truths relating to the time they were absent, the number of occasions and the distance from the apartments.

Nevertheless this couple were subsequently "sanctified" by an effcient publicity machine in an overwheming and whipped-up outburst of conspicuous compassion reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Diana phenomenon.

Please read this well written article by rita Panahi linked to be eanjay
Madeleine - where have you gone?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 07:57 AM

Nevertheless this couple were subsequently "sanctified" by an effcient publicity machine in an overwhelming and whipped-up outburst of conspicuous compassion reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Diana phenomenon.

I've just read the conspicuous compassion link and the first thing I thought about was how when this little girl went missing members of parliament wore yellow ribbons.

I commented on it in one of my earlier posts where I pointed out that people were questioning why they were not doing the same for Alan Johnston who had been kidnapped 9 days later and was still missing at that time.

This is a link well worth reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:00 AM

What's the opposite of "compassion"?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:36 AM

Compassion is an understanding of the emotional state of another.

I'm sure we can all understand the emotional state of someone who has lost a child or the emotional state of a child who has been abused or neglected or kidnapped or ............ It does not however mean that we have to condone the actions of those who have caused such misery.

Not condoning is not the same as not being compassionate.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 08:47 AM

I presume that it is being implied that the opposite of compassionate is discompassionate - usually used as a perjorative term.
However it can also be synonymous with "candid" or "neutral" - free from bias, prejeudice or malice or a sincere honest expression.

Buddhist teaching states that "True compassion balances loving-concern with clear wisdom. This wisdom enables us to stay calm and think clearly how best to help, without being carried away by our emotions."

I don't think there is a lack of sympathy or compassion anywhere in this thread for the suffering of the missing child although there may indeed be sincere honest expressions of feelings about the circumstances that brought this about.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 10:37 AM

The usual suspects

The investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has ominous parallels with the Azaria Chamberlain case

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:21 AM

Thanks for the link, Wolfgang. Interesting article. Like most, I have no idea of the parents are guilty of murder, but I do know they should never have left such young children alone.

Even my grandson knows better. We were driving along the other day when we saw two little girls walking home from school. He will be four in November. We have cautioned him to never go anywhere without one of us or his teachers as children are not to be out alone. When he saw those girls, he put his hands over his mouth and said, "I can't believe that!" When I asked him what (I had not seen them right away) he answered, "Those girls are walking all alone. No family!" and motioned with his hands. I praised him greatly as that IS the message we want him to get. I cannot imagine he would be any different if we took him to a motel and tried to leave him in the room alone, esp. at night. He would NOT stand for it.

One wonders about the McCanns parenting skills in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:24 AM

"MISPLACED sympathy is a common symptom of those afflicted with bleeding-heart syndrome.
These poor folk will defend the indefensible, make excuses where none exist and generally forgive any behaviour no matter how abhorrent and irresponsible.
They are out in force again, lining up to support Kate and Gerry McCann, who are now considered suspects by the Portuguese police in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.
Leading the charge in Australia are those quick to connect the case with that of Lindy Chamberlain, despite the circumstances being world's apart in just about every way."

another Australian viewpoint.....

Madeleine, where have you gone?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:50 AM

"world's apart in just about every way"

How about "the parents reactions from the very first day was cold and non-responsive"...?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:59 AM

What is the idea behind linking for the third time to the same article?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 12:10 PM

I offered an "alternative" Australian viewpoint to that expressed in the article you gave a link to Wolfgang.

I thought that it was protocol in these situations to give the origins of a quote, I have no knowledge whether other people (including yourself) have actually read this article.

Is there some "rule" that information cannot be refreshed?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 12:11 PM

Refreshed yes, but repeated ad nauseam...?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 03:50 PM

repeated ad nauseam

That does seem to happen a lot on this forum!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 03:52 PM

Emma, I read the article to which you linked, in your previous posting. Usually just referring to your earlier link is adequate.

I do think we have to be careful not to swing too much of either way: instantly judgemental or compassion without question. I don't know of too many parents who wouldn't feel some empathy with the McCanns, initially, or any other parents who have lost a child, but that doesn't mean we all go off into a self-satisfying demonstration of grief, etc.

It is a painful thing to watch. I wish the media would practise some restraint. It is insane, to me, that the parents are now looking for an even more experienced media handler. I can see involving the press as much as possible to publicise the loss, but not to keep the case on the front page, etc. But, we may never learn that lesson. The media bullshit and the total involvement of complete strangers, brings to mind poor little Elian Gonzales. No, he didn't disappear, but the media and stranger frenzy were as intense.

May her god watch over Madeleine, wherever she is, and bring justice to bear for the highest good of all concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM

It is insane, to me, that the parents are now looking for an even more experienced media handler.

I couldn't agree more.

I really wish that the media would focus more on the missing child rather than the parents.

All of this really isn't going to help to find her.

I join you in your last sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 04:52 PM

The fact that both Gerry and Kate McCann closed the door of their apartment night after night to go in pursuit of their youth, empting several bottles of wine until the small hours of the morning and leaving three children alone, turns my stomach.

Leaving children of this age for one night makes them irresponsible, their admission of leaving them night after night should result in the twins being removed from their care.

To think there are people on this thread who are actually defending the two McCann's amazes me.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 04:58 PM

I don't think anyone is defending their actions in leaving the kids like that. If anyone is, that person is a fuckin' idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 05:33 PM

Pardon the language.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 05:34 PM

I couldn't have expressed it better myself :)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 05:39 PM

It is illegal in Portugal for anyone except the police or court-approved expert to carry out an investigation into a crime. A fund was created to collect donations to pay for the search for Madeleine, but police told the parents it would be illegal to pay for private detectives while their investigation was still active.

I have just copied this from a Timesonline report.

Referring back to my previous suggestion of hiring private detectives to look for Madeleine - this clearly is why that has not been done.

What a shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 05:45 PM

Nobody is defending them, but I do get the feeling from some posts of an underlying tide of opinion that seems to say.
'What happened to their child served them right, it's their fault the child was taken'
I for one find this sanctimonious undercurrent disgusting.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 05:58 PM

'What happened to their child served them right, it's their fault the child was taken'

It isn't the child's fault though.

The parents do hold some responsibility.

At the risk of being accused of repeating myself, I will say again that I think the media should either tone it down or focus on the child. The people in Rothley can probably now understand how the residents of Praia da Luz felt with all this frenzy. It can't be easy living with it on your doorstep.

Surely, more can be done to try and find her.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 06:03 PM

Of course they bear some responsibility, but it's a bit of a harsh retribution for doing something that is not uncommon.
The holier than thou attitude, and the hatred of the McCanns that I see in some of the posts in this thread make me want to puke.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 06:07 PM

The holier than thou attitude, and the hatred of the McCanns that I see in some of the posts in this thread make me want to puke.

Those are pretty harsh words from someone so quick to criticise others for what they see as the "same" thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 06:11 PM

If they'd been with their kids their kids would now be with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 06:39 PM

I don't think it's really "an underlying tide of opinion", Giok - a few individuals seem to see it that way. Waves, not a tide.

So far, thank God, what we've seen here hasn't quite matched the viciousness of some of the stuff that has posted elsewhere.

"Even the Help Find Madeleine McCann website is now full of disgusting insinuations: "I never believed in your pain", "You have shown nothing but cold emotion ever since 3rd May" , " Kate McCann is either a cold, emotionless woman or there is more going on than meets the eye" and so, appallingly, on. A similar website organised by the McCanns' local newspaper has had to be shut down, after the editors found themselves unable to stem the tide of vicious comments in what was designed to be a sea of comfort". (From this article by Dominic Lawson.)

What makes people like that tick? Perhaps that is something for another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 06:52 PM

I haven't seen any viciousness towards the McCanns here at all. Perhaps some people are being influenced by what they are reading on other forums and feel that they detect those same feelings here. I haven't noticed it myself.

It does seem though that if one has a different opinion to others then they are slated for it.

Perhaps we would all be better to leave the thread before it does get nasty and hope that this ridiculous reporting on the family stops in the near future and we can all be spared any more of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 07:15 PM

As Wolfgang's article points out, emotions run high on this one. It hits at people's secret fears (and guilts perhaps.) (No there was no undercurrent to that!) Yeah, the reporting is crap. There is a nice summary today on the BBC site of what few facts have been leaked. (The UK dogs searched "several" cars on July 25 (or so).)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 07:57 PM

(Wolfgang's Guardian article of 12 Sep 07 - 06:19 AM - not the dingo dog stuff.)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 09:11 PM

I doubt this thread will ever turn as nasty as some of the other forums mentioned above.

I think the majority of those on this thread now feel the child wasn't abducted.

Despite our opinions of the McCann's, I doubt any of you expect a third party to be charged with a crime.

That leaves the question, what happened to the child and who was responsible ?

As many of you are aware I am not afraid of expressing my views on this case. I am convinced the mother is guilty of manslaughter (drug induced) and her husband guilty of loyalty to his wife and both acutely aware of the public abhorrence of their actions and the ending of their professional careers.

Really they have so so much to loose by an admission of the events of that fateful day. They either must be confident that no remains will be found, or they have accepted their daughter isn't coming back.

Neither have made a public request for "the abductor" to return the child for months now, nor have they displayed anger at the lack of progress concerning the police search.

I repeat, not one of the other 18 adults on holiday with the McCann's remained in Portugal to comfort them or assist in the search, ALL left the country on their scheduled flights.

Would you leave your friends in that predicament ?

There has been many parallels compared to this case here, none of which I can relate to.

Despite their inability to act as responsible parents, their reactions at the loss of their child looks more like two people more concerned with their own fate.

No I do not feel either parent deserves anguish due to their irresponsibly. I do feel it's time they return to Portugal and tell the police what really happened and if they are concealing the child's remains to disclose this information and allow a dignified burial.

I repeat, this is a discussion forum and people are fully entitled to express their viewpoints without being called names.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 10:15 PM

Actually, If I were called upon to put my money down one way or another right now, I think I would bet on no complicity. I wouldn't feel very safe on it, but still, I think I would bet that the Portugese cops were acting in desperation with that last interview of the parents, lacking sufficient evidence in a high profile situation. Just a hunch.

Call me a sick bastard and a ghoul if you will. I don't care. I do third kat's wish: May god watch over Madeleine, wherever she is, and bring justice to bear for the highest good of all concerned.

The friends' departure is somewhat interesting, Victor, but they may all simply be self-centered, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: mg
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:36 PM

What I would worry about given several things that have been either reported or suggested, is some sort of vomiting aspiration in a sedated child..another child she was presumably with was said to be vomiting and the parents had left her alone.... I hope that resort and many more get really specific with parents about leaving children untended. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:07 AM

"I think the majority of those on this thread now feel the child wasn't abducted."

This is the sort of crap I refer to when I say some of the posts on this thread make me sick!
'I am perfect, I would never do that, I am right, and you all must surely agree with me'
Holier than thou is what I said, and holier than thou is what I meant.
Talk about terminal smugness!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:29 AM

Really to resort to such nastiness is not becoming of you John.

I had noticed in your earlier posts you felt the parents weren't guilty of a crime. Is it the fact they are both doctors ?
Do I detect a little social snobbery ?

As I said, we are all entitled to our opinions and I clearly stated what I think happened from the facts in front of me.

So John, tell us what you think happened ?

This case is in the public arena and people are allowed to voice their opinions, unless we have to run them past you first ?

Am I perfect ? No.

Have I ever left my kids alone and vulnerable ? Definitely NOT.

Can I find it in my heart to give the parents understanding for leaving three children alone night after night while on a family holiday (probably at home too for all we know) no I can't.

Maybe you can relate to their behaviour John, if so I understand where you are now coming from.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:53 AM

O wad some power the giftie gie us, To see oursel's as others see us, ...

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 06:24 AM

It seems that everyone is jumping on the bandwagon - pointing the finger that is.

I've copied this from one of the newspaper reports.

The move comes amid growing anger among those close to the McCanns. They claim police have bungled the inquiry and are now making Madeleine's parents "scapegoats". Today they accused police of failing to fully investigate Mr Murat, the only other formal suspect in the case.
There is a growing belief among the McCanns' friends that police are determined to find the couple guilty at all costs of killing Madeleine.
Close friends of the McCanns remain convinced Mr Murat is still the most likely suspect, although he denies any involvement and the police investigation into him appears to have drawn a blank. Like the McCanns, Mr Murat has been named an arguido - a formal suspect. Sources close to the McCanns insist Mr Murat lied about his whereabouts on 3 May.
Mr O'Brien, Fiona Payne and Rachael Oldfield - all friends of the McCanns - and a Portuguese local have testified they saw Mr Murat helping the search for Madeleine on 3 May.
I cannot believe Murat is no longer being investigated," said a source close to the McCanns, "He is lying about being there on the night. They cannot understand why it hasn't been followed up why Murat lied. Kate and Gerry are being scapegoated.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 06:27 AM

MGofH

Robert Burns - I love his poetry.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 06:40 AM

I repeat, not one of the other 18 adults on holiday with the McCann's remained in Portugal to comfort them or assist in the search, ALL left the country on their scheduled flights. (Victor)

It is easy to google the names of the seven persons who have been with the McCann's on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance and it is also easy to google what they did. The Payne couple stayed with the McCanns in Portugal.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 07:05 AM

another scenario

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 08:34 AM

I'd noticed the same discrepancy as Wolfgang did - like a number of other bits of gossip and rumour boldly presented as facts in the media, and in some instances on this thread, "ALL left the country on their scheduled flights" doesn't actually stand up under closer inspection.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 08:40 AM

Nice to see selective media reports out there to suit everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 08:55 AM

I don't know what happened Victor, and neither do you! So it would perhaps be better to curtail your pious postings until you have some knowledge to base them on.
Kevin was right, ghouls; and may I add vultures to the list of suitable epithets.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:51 AM

Ghouls,Vultures,defenders of irresponsible parents,astute observers and the very naive. Well we're all there then.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:54 AM

I don't notice anybody actually defending the parents, just their right not to be attacked and vilified on the basis of what you read in the papers, and see on TV.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:09 AM

This Portugese law of complete silence/nondisclosure by police sounds wonderful, but inconsistencies abound between newspapers based on "are reported to believe" "are reported to have said" "are reported to have found."



Blood on the streets, blood on the rocks, blood in the gutter, every last drop. You want blood? You got it.   -Bon Scott

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:17 AM

Or in some instances on the basis of stuff that wasn't actually in the papers or on TV, but comes from overhasty reading or viewing and from reading between the lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:39 AM

overhasty reading or viewing and from reading between the lines.

Exactly. And the inability to understand the difference between fact and inference.

One tiny example:
(1) The McCanns and seven other people have said that they had three bottles of wine between them in the Tapas bar that evening.
(2) It was reported in newspapers that a bill with 14 wine bottles was paid for on that evening.

In some comments (other places) I have read that the 9 people had drunk 14 bottles of wine presented as a fact when, in fact, that is only one possible inference.

Scenario: They might have bought more to take them home (it was the last night of the vacation)
Scenario: On the last night they paid for all the bottles they had had during a few days.
Scenario: Of course, they might have drunk 14 bottles and all 9 people lie about that.

I don't know and my guess is that over here no one else knows. But I am appaled by selective reporting of all information that sounds damaging (Victor, that's you!) and I think we should wait with inferences.

Leaving the children alone on that evening doesn't make them guilty of death by accident (overdose) and disposing of a body which is the lead the Portugese police follows now (hopefully as one of several leads). These are two very different things with very different consequences for the couple.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:49 AM

The 3 things we do know for certain:

The parents have acted irresponsibly in their parenting.

The media have (and are still doing it) acted irresponsibly.

The media has been encouraged by the parents and that has hindered the police investigation to some degree.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 10:57 AM

Spot on eanjay, that's exactly what I've been saying, albeit not so succinctly.
Thank you.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:04 AM

Actually the "report" about the wine came from the bar bill of the tapas bar for the party that night. It is possible, of course, that

1 each member of the party drank only 2 small glasses of wine over a two hour period on the last night of their holiday.
2 the extra 11 bottles were bought to take back to the apartments   3 the bar staff of the holiday complex could all be lying.

However other initial press reports that the bar was only 40 yds away from the apartment were incorrect.

The whole problem here is that the press HAVE been guilty of presenting "facts" in a very biased way, not the least under the influence of the publicity conscious "McCann brand" as the team of publicists and financial advisors surrounding the family came to be termed.

I fear that the backlash after the naming of the parents as "suspects" will only worsen this process. There is money to be made from this whole tragic tale and that is where you'll find the ghouls, not on this thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:14 AM

There is money to be made from this whole tragic tale and .........

I couldn't agree more and this is one of the things that is so distasteful about the reporting and PR that is going on.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:38 AM

When you count up the bottles after any party, don't you always seem to find you got through a lot more than you thought you had, because who's counting? (I mean, if you're driving you be likely to know what you drank yourself, but hardly what everyone else had.)
......................................

I can't see how encouraging the media to keep pictures of Madeleine on the front pages and in the public eyes for as long as possible should have hindered the police in their investigations.

It's still possible to hope that Madeleine will turn up safe and well - starnger things have happened. But more likely that, if it was indeed an abduction, she is gone forever.

And it's only too likely that there will be no clear outcome to this. No trial ending in a conviction, but a permanent cloud of suspicion over the parents. It's clearly a matter of "guilty until proved innocent" for some people - "I am convinced the mother is guilty of manslaughter".

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:38 AM

Well there you have it, according to the bible of Saint Wolfgang.

I note from some of his posts on older threads here he is no shrinking violet when it comes to voicing his opinion or giving us an insight to his vast knowledge of most subjects.

"Leaving the children alone on that evening doesn't make them guilty of death by accident" Yes you are correct on that point.

I remain of the opinion that this child was not abducted, and the parents acted grossly irresponsible and are covering up the events of her disappearance. That is my opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

Feel free to believe what you wish, but don't attempt to alter my views.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 11:54 AM

I can't see how encouraging the media to keep pictures of Madeleine on the front pages and in the public eyes for as long as possible should have hindered the police in their investigations.

The publicity campaign brought up all sorts of false sightings which wasted a lot of police time. The parents themselves have said that this waste of time was one of the disadvantages of their campaign but that they didn't know what to do for the best.

Also the police have said that the presence of the media in Praia da Luz did get in the way of their investigations as it got in the way of everybody who was trying to live a normal life there.

Also, it was a reporter who decided that there was something strange about Robert Murat.

The reporting has indeed hindered the police investigation.

Guest, Victor has every right to express his views. I don't find anything offensive about anything he has said.

Posters on this thread have been very careful about how they have worded criticisms of the family.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:20 PM

If Madeleine has indeed been kidnapped the only hope for finding her would be that someone sees a child that looks like her and reports it. I doubt if anyone would wish them to keep quite just in case it might turn out to be a false sighting.

Nothing in anyway offensive for someone, in the absence of conclusive evidence, to say "I am convinced the mother is guilty of manslaughter"". Not "I have a suspicion" or even "I think it most likely" - "I am convinced"?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 12:32 PM

If Madeleine has indeed been kidnapped the only hope for finding her would be that someone sees a child that looks like her and reports it. I doubt if anyone would wish them to keep quite just in case it might turn out to be a false sighting.

That was one of the things that caused the parents conflict, they had to weigh up what would do the most good but cause the least harm. Perhaps hoping that someone sees a child that looks like her even if it does waste police time gives the best outcome for the child. Who knows?

Clearly you and I will have to disagree on what is offensive and what is not. Perhaps you are more sensitive than I am - who knows? However, we are both allowed our opinions!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 01:25 PM

And I repeat I am convinced.


I remain of the belief that the Portuguese police are in receipt of a lot more information than we are aware of. They showed mercy in allowing the mother to confess to manslaughter.

The British police assisted with the most advanced forensic science available. Including providing two dogs trained in seeking out dead remains. I am unaware of these dogs searching anything other than the apartment or cars hired by the McCann's. Is anyone aware of these dogs searching the scrub lands surround the complex ?

I am sorry if some find my gut instincts offensive or pompous, and there will be no "I told you so" when this case comes to a conclusion.

You are all aware of what I feel happened to the child and I feel the Portuguese police are allowing a window of opportunity for Kate and Gerry McCann to consider their involvement and confess to what really happened. If not they will come down hard on them, making a formal arrest and interrogate both of them, using a new much tougher line of questioning. Be this the case I would expect them to employ intense psychological questioning of Kate McCann who after all is a grieving mother and I doubt she would be strong enough to sustain her simplicity in the case.

I think the loss of their child will eventually over come their fears of personal repercussions and their cool exterior will collapse. Be this the case, no custodial sentence or subjection to a public outcry will come anywhere near their inner grief at the loss of their child and being so foolish not to have told the truth from the start.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 01:36 PM

The mother was offered a 2 year sentence and the father would have been allowed to take the other children home, had they said that they were responsible for the disappearance.

However, if they are innocent then they should not confess to something they are not guilty of; I certainly wouldn't do it however attractive the sentence may seem to others.

In any event I do feel that the sentence "offered" was fair for the neglect alone.

We cannot even be sure that the police did offer any concessions - they deny it. Yet again, this is irresponsible reporting.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 01:48 PM

"The British police assisted with the most advanced forensic science available." As they did in the case of Angela Cannings and Sally Clark, convicted of killing their children, and jailed - and subsequently cleared.

And of course at this time none of us have any reliable evidence about what the forensic evidence consists of in relation to Madeleine. We have leaks and speculation. And "gut feelings".

This isn't a detective story, where the least likely suspect is always a good bet. It's not a game where the aim is to guess the answer before the author has given all the clues. There us no reason in the world for onlookers to rush to judgement. Such evidence as there is will be open to scrutiny soon enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 01:56 PM

The cases of Angela Cannings and Sally Clark were so tragic. I was almost in tears when I heard that Sally Clark had died at such a young age.

God forbid that any such injustice should occur here.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:01 PM

Two very disturbing miscarriges of justice brought about by the "expert evidence" of Professor Sir Samuel Roy Meadow based on his DICTUM that "one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder, until proved otherwise"

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:03 PM

I was unaware that Sir Roy Meadow had come out of retirement. I referred to the actual science of forensics, not the word of a paediatrician.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 02:19 PM

McCann: forensics warning"

"Experts are urging caution be used over forensic evidence, that may lie at the centre of the Madeleine McCann investigation...

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:05 PM

THE DOUBTER
Whenever we seemed
To have found the answer to a question
One of us united the string of the old rolled-up
Chinese scroll on the wall, so that it fell down and
Revealed to us the man on the bench who
Doubted so much.

I, he said to us
Am the doubter. I am doubtful whether
The work was well done that devoured your days.
Whether what you said would still have value for anyone if it
Were less well said.
Whether you said it well but perhaps
Were not concvinced of the truth of what you said.
Whether it is not ambiguous;each possible misunderstanding
Is your responsibility. Or it can be unambiguous
And take the contracdictions out of things; is it too
Unambiguous?
If so, what you say is useless. Your thing has no life in it.
Are you truly in the stream of happening? Do you accept
All that develops? Are you developing? Who are you? To
Whom
Do you speak? Who finds what you say useful? And , by the
Way:
Is it sobering? Can it be read in the morning?
Is it also linked to what is already there? Are the sentences
That were
Spoken before you made use of, or at least refuted? Is
Everything verifiable?
By experience? By which one? But above all
Always above all else: how does one act
If one believes what you say? Above all: how does one act?

Reflectively, curiously, we studied the doubting
Blue man on the scroll, looked at each other and
Made a fresh start.

Bertolt Brecht

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:18 PM

Wolfgang,

I have never read that poem before. On the third line where it says united I thought it must be a typing mistake and should read untied. However, having googled it, all the versions I found used united so it must be right but I don't really understand why united.

Do you have any idea?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:32 PM

Here it is in German (and I think the answer is it should be "untied", Mistakes and misunderstandings can easily creep in, and then they get copied; you can't always rely on what you see in print or on the Internet - which is appropriater enough for this thread:

Bertold Brecht:
"Der Zweifler"

Immer wenn uns
Die Antwort auf eine Frage gefunden schien
Löste einer von uns an der Wand die Schnur der alten
Aufgerollten chinesischen Leinwand, so daß sie herabfiele und
Sichtbar wurde der Mann auf der Bank, der
So sehr zweifelte.

Ich, sagte er uns
Bin der Zweifler, ich zweifle, ob
Die Arbeit gelungen ist, die eure Tage verschlungen hat.
Ob, was ihr gesagt, auch schlechter gesagt, noch für einige Wert hätte.
Ob ihr es aber gut gesagt und euch nicht etwa
Auf die Wahrheit verlassen habt dessen, was ihr gesagt habt.
Ob es nicht vieldeutig ist, für jeden möglichen Irrtum
Tragt ihr die Schuld. Es kann auch eindeutig sein
Und den Widerspruch aus den Dingen entfernen; ist es zu eindeutig?
Dann ist es unbrauchbar, was ihr sagt. Euer Ding ist dann leblos
Seid ihr wirklich im Fluß des Geschehens? Einverstanden mit
Allem, was wird? Werdet ihr noch? Wer seid ihr? Zu wem
Sprecht ihr? Wem nützt es, was ihr da sagt? Und nebenbei:
Läßt es auch nüchtern? Ist es am Morgen zu lesen?
Ist es auch angeknüpft an vorhandenes? Sind die Sätze, die
Vor euch gesagt sind, benutzt, wenigstens widerlegt? Ist alles belegbar?
Durch Erfahrung? Durch welche? Aber vor allem
Immer wieder vor allem anderen: Wie handelt man
Wenn man euch glaubt, was ihr sagt? Vor allem: Wie handelt man?

Nachdenklich betrachteten wir mit Neugier den zweifelnden
Blauen Mann auf der Leinwand, sahen uns an und
Begannen von vorne.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor.
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 05:53 PM

Very thoughtful of you Wolfgang to post that, I love the work of Brecht.

Maybe this one will amuse you.

I've come to realize
When considering my plight
With so many saying I'm wrong
How can I be right?


I am told my thinking is flawed
my hunches all wrong !
Wait and see Victor till
the proof comes along.


I read the wrong papers
few mudcatter friends,
My grammar is dreadful
Seems, the list never ends.

I trust in my instincts though
some disagree,well sorry for thinking
and welcome to me.

A fine list of odes and quotation's
I read, all aimed at my viewpoints
I am flattered indeed.


Some analogies made I'd care to forget
I somehow imagine the bests to come yet.
To hold an opinion seems more like a crime,
I hope this regresses in the fullness of time.


You see, I've thought and considered
But try as I might...
With so many things wrong,
I can never be right!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 06:20 PM

Guest, Victor

I really enjoyed that.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 06:53 PM

You had a co-conspirator in your crimes here, Vic. But only you stayed to face the heat. Good on ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 07:28 PM

There are a few people with my train of thought heric, a few nice ladies and a couple of open minded guys.

I really do feel so strongly about this case (as you may have noticed).

What I also found is, this must be the only thread on the entire site where the line "In my opinion" sounds almost criminal. Everyone else can get away with expressing a view on a news story except me !

At least none of us are falling out over it, just one guy said he wouldn't post on the thread as long as I'm here.

After reading his posts on other threads, he will never know how grateful I am to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 07:35 PM

Hang tough, Victor. I don't know about the conclusion you've reached, but the parents were wrong--completely and totally WRONG--to leave their children like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 07:52 PM

some strong views expressed here!

Victor I haven't always agreed with you or your analysis but I feel strongly that the initial thread should never have been deleted - if we are denied discussing such important issues objectively we risk falling into some "fluffy bunny" syndrome as one catter acquaintance put it!

Would you consider relinquishing your "guest" status? Bearing in mind what reception "Canadienne" received I can appreciate it if you would prefer not!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 08:00 PM

Peace, as a father and a parent who almost lost a child to illness I was never so scared in my entire life at the prospect of the loss.

To hold up in front of your wife who was crumbling by the day took strength I never thought I had.

Listening to the McCann's casual dismissal of leaving three children all alone night after night fired something up in me.

After we came out of the woods with our child, I moved the bed into our room and lay awake at nights just starring to see movement, I will be honest, it wrecked us, to hear a doctor say "expect the worst" will ring in my ears until I am ninety.

These people must have understood that anything could have happen these kids at any time and still they put a social life over their responsibility.

The reactions of Kate McCann at the loss of a child, is not how I remember my wife at the "possible loss" of ours.

Well some here need a villain and it appears to be me.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 08:40 PM

No kind of villain, Victor. I just felt you were too certain too soon where there is no certainty.

You may of course be right in your suspicions. I very much hope you are wrong, as I am sure you do too.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: redsnapper
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 08:49 PM

The fact of the matter is, as Giok said a number of posts ago, that none of us know what actually happened.

RS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 08:54 PM

Victor, it's those moments when you know deep inside yourself that you'd give your own life in a flash to make everything right with your child. In a way I face that every day of my life and have for over a dozen years. And there is not a day goes by when I don't wish I could trade my own life to improve that of the child who is so dear to my heart.

I do not see you as a villain, bad guy or anything like that. Not too many folks do. As I said, hang tough. As Kevin mention in his excellent post, it's a little early to make a decision as to who is guilty of what.

Any situation that involves children in danger can be a very emotional one, and rightly so. Some Medics in LA--a place where they encounter absolutely everything in regard to trauma--were wired with EKGs and when any call came in that mentioned infant or child, their pulse rate rocketed. IMO, that's the way it should be. I know I have become somewhat inured to the sights and sounds that accompany people in distress, but never when it involves kids. And it's like that for the rest of the guys, too. They are kids, and it's our job to ensure they 'make it'. It is devastating when one doesn't.

If indeed it is established that the parents were responsible for harm to the children--aside from their extreme negligence in leaving them alone--I hope there is a special place in Hell reserved for them. But we have to let the police and the courts decide on that.

Please keep well, Victor.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 09:32 PM

Emma, I just looked in from time to time on the site to read what's happening in the local folk scene. I doubt my membership would be welcomed, I somehow think there would be a lot of black balls put into the bag that night !

Five months ago, long before a sizeable percentage of the population (according to the press) sorry for using the "P" word, expressed doubts about what actually happened that dreadful night I was called every conceivable name under the sun for sharing my opinions.

If you go the top of this thread you will read them. I started a thread days after the child went missing and simply said, I suspected parental involvement and felt the Portuguese police did too.

McG of H, I hope dearly some miracle would occur and the child would turn up safe somewhere, but I feel few hold hopes of such an occurrence.


I lived in Portugal for a number of years, and found the people there wonderful. Never under estimate the police there, I was made aware of an eastern European gang operation possibly involving fake or stolen passports and counterfeiting. I knew the police were made aware of it by a local businessman and thought them lazy and incompetent.

Actually they played out a very slow game plan and built a cast iron case that wouldn't weave it's way out of a courtroom.

I am sorry if any of you feel I am premature at casting a guilty vote concerning the McCann's, I don't see them as bad people, irresponsible yes. And I maintain my belief that the child died in the apartment as a result of a tragic accident involving the administration of sedition and human nature kicked in, fear, panic and self preservation took over both parents.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 05:25 AM

Gosh isn't this cosy!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 12:51 PM

We don't have blackballing here, Victor.

I agree the chances of Madeleine being found safe and well are slim. Even if she is safe and well somewhere, which is also possible.

And I suspect the chances of conclusive proof of what happened are pretty slim too. Which means that even if the McCann's are completely innocent of hurting their child, they are going to have to live with suspicion and accusation for the rest of their lives. That's a pretty terrible thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 01:18 PM

"Bearing in mind what reception "Canadienne" received I can appreciate it if you would prefer not!"

Pardon?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 02:26 PM

Peter Zimonjic: Am I a ghoul?

(Reader's Digest version of this thread.)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 02:38 PM

According to Mr. Zimonjic, it was not the police who released or leaked the dog/DNA allegation (and probably not the corpse sniffing either): " . . . it was revealed by the McCann family that police claimed to have found DNA belonging to Madeleine in a car rented by her parents."

Many more things were supposedly leaked to inquiring reporters from secret connections, such as the 40 questions refused, or the "too much hair to be secondary transfer," but the two most damaging doggie tidbits were revealed by the McCanns themselves, resulting in the turning media tide.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 02:44 PM

Heric, thanks for posting that - I hadn't seen it and it is worth reading.

I was a bit surprised today to see that £80,000 of the fund money is being used in another advertising campaign across Europe. It is to be used for newspaper, television and billboard adverts. There can't be many people who don't know that she is missing and the story is in most newspapers and on the television daily. That money could be used to help other children in need and IMO there is something obscene about this new proposed campaign and spending that amount of money to advertise for one missing child when the whole world already knows that child is missing. For goodness sake, there are starving and homeless children out there.

So we can expect more from the media and it is costing £80,000. When will it ever end?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 02:45 PM

Is it possible (it is possible) that the police interrogators were so incompetent they threw the trunk DNA allegation at the McCanns without comprehending how ridiculous that approach was in the overall setting?

I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 02:46 PM

I was talking about your link in my previous post.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 02:57 PM

Yeah I know. We cross posted. Just threw in a rhetorical question.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 03:11 PM

'"Bearing in mind what reception "Canadienne" received I can appreciate it if you would prefer not!"

Pardon?'

You just become the local cop?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 03:27 PM

Just curious as the provenance of the remark Bruce!
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: gnu
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 03:32 PM

La Belle Province?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 03:42 PM

Thanks, Giok. Question: How's the Scottish Mudgather shaping up?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 03:46 PM

Great thanks Bruce, looking forward to a super weekend.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 03:50 PM

I just read through the thread, quickly, and it sure looks like there is lots of interest. I think you're in for a fantastic time. Good on you for getting it to happen. I hope you have great weather and wonderful songs.

A friend from England (he's a trad singer mostly) has got me turned on to some wonderful music, and if it's that that you have to look forward to, I envy the lot of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 03:52 PM

You would be more than welcome mate.
Giok

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

Someday, Giok. For sure, someday. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Too much evidence
Date: 15 Sep 07 - 09:30 PM

"Many highly intelligent people are poor thinkers. Many people of average intelligence are skilled thinkers.
The power of a car is separate from the way the car is driven."
Edward de Bono

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:50 AM

Eanjay,

very good to spot that typo (replicated on may sites): "untie" is the word in the German original.

Trial by global gossip

The public, through the internet, can – and does – say anything, no matter how degrading or toxic, and keeps on saying it until, by a sort of insane osmosis, it stops being an outright lie and becomes a half-truth....
you can almost feel their quickening breath and their peculiar excitement as they comprehensively trash the reputation of a grieving woman ...
opinion dividing into people who see leaving a child as stupid, but not the world's greatest crime – such people are broadly sympathetic to the McCanns – and people who find it inexcusable, criminal and indicative of all sorts of dark possibilities.


Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:22 AM

Thanks Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:35 AM

Well there you have it.

We could all find selective media reports Wolfgang to support what we believed happened.

If I "blue clicked" one of the numerous news reports I read and believed, no doubt you would be one of the first to dismiss it.

That article was rubbish by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:36 AM

I hope dearly some miracle would occur and the child would turn up safe somewhere, but I feel few hold hopes of such an occurrence. (Victor)

You hope but you feel that few others hope?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:43 AM

Arrogant assumption of rectitude, and the offhand dismissal of any facts that disagree with ones own beliefs and/or theories, is the sign of a closed mind.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 06:45 AM

I think many people hold hopes of a "miracle" but, in their hearts, I think the majority of people now grieve for this child.

Nevertheless a new advertizing campaign costing 80,000 euros has been launched by the family. Like eanjay I feel this money could be better spent some of the press (that we have all been so fond of quoting hehre) have suggested that this will, of course, deflect suspicion from the family again!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 11:36 AM

Yes I would like to see the child found safe and well.

Yes I feel this is now unlikely as time pasts.

From what I have read, few people hold out hopes the child will turn up alive at this stage.

Yes I think the mother sedated the children so the couple could enjoy another social evening with friends.

Yes Wolfgang I hope.

No John I do not consider myself "Arrogant".

Next question or insult please.

I feel a new campaign has to be launched by the family as they cannot be seen to be sitting back doing nothing. Possibly advised to do this by their legal team or their PR team.

Regaining public support is stage one of any damage limitation exorcise.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 11:39 AM

Even "Exercise" Sorry !

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 11:46 AM

I feel a new campaign has to be launched by the family as they cannot be seen to be sitting back doing nothing. Possibly advised to do this by their legal team or their PR team.

This had crossed my mind and of course it's easy to do when none of your own money is involved.

Richard Branson has now started another fund for the legal costs.

I did find a link which says that the reporting is all out of perspective but I couldn't be bothered posting it. I also found a link that accuses them of much worse than anything you have said, Victor - but I'm not posting that either.

I doubt that a lot of us would even have heard about poor little
Ylenia Lenhard if they hadn't been looking to see if her disappearance had anything to do with Madeleine McCann's. Her body has now been found.

The whole thing is making me more cynical than I usually am!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:00 PM

Yes, everyone hopes that Madeleine will turn up.

Some people suspect that the parents might have sedated here and caused her death. Others have pointed out that this is a speculative hypothesis, and that there is no clearcut evidence for it in the public domain (rumours and gossip are merely rumours and gossip, even when they are passed on by journalists.

I am sure that everyone hopes that the parents are not guilty of the death of their daughter.

Not really that much difference between us, where it matters, when we come down to it. We just need to accept that we just don't know - none of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:25 PM

I don't know if there are people who want to see "that woman" brought down, in the hopes of finding a witch, any witch, for burning at the stake. I suppose people do crazy things, but I would't accuse anyone here of that. I don't even understand why or how it is switching to "that woman" rather than the McCanns, if it has. (Perhaps, with pure speculation, that arose from an interrogation technique of trying to divide the parents.)

Another reason to find this interesting is that what (we thought) the police had accused them of is amazing/remarkable/fantastic under the situation: That two people, in a crowded resort, surrounded by many acquantances, could immediately coordinate a massive fraud when presented with an unexpected accident, and then take that cover up to the greatest heights imaginable. All with no pre-planning.

Turns out, of course, that the police really haven't accused them of anything, we were just led to that understanding by the Portugese tabloids and, surprisingly, the McCanns themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:31 PM

I agree, none of us know with certainty McG.

Expressing our viewpoints in a civil manner and exchanging possibilities is not a crime, well to some here it is.

I have also read some of the posts on other forums eanjay. I haven't posted on them. There is a lot of anger out there, this comes from unanswered questions and the behaviour of the parents.

Maybe some of our more vocal name callers here could visit them and sort them out ?

Nothing any of us here say can bring the case to a conclusion or place the parents before a judge and jury, we are only expressing our views, just as dozens of other members/guests do here daily on subjects ranging from the Iraq war, George Bush, the right to hold firearms to why we had no bloody summer !

Can I ask those who steam in with jaws blazing the following questions.

Do you feel convinced the child was abducted ?

Are you totally convinced the parents are innocent ?

Are you happy with all the answers the McCann's gave to questions posed to them ?

Is my belief that the mother gave the children sedation and this child had an adverse reaction to it and died, and that Gerry McCann in an attempt to save their careers and a public outcry covered the events of a tragic mistake so far fetched ?

I am not saying hey are monsters, save the name calling for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:39 PM

I have also read some of the posts on other forums eanjay. I haven't posted on them. There is a lot of anger out there, this comes from unanswered questions and the behaviour of the parents.

Victor, the link I was referring to was actually another newspaper dated today!

Turns out, of course, that the police really haven't accused them of anything, we were just led to that understanding by the Portugese tabloids and, surprisingly, the McCanns themselves.

Exactly - but in this case there seems to be one rule for some and a different rule for others!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:49 PM

It's like the eedjits that run the EEC! Oh yes lets all discuss it, then put it to the vote, that's the fairest way.
"WHAT, you voted no, I'm sorry but you were supposed to vote yes"
OK we will ask the same question again, same words different order, just so as you think it's a different question when it isn't really.
If you vote no again, we will keep putting the same question in a slightly different format, until you say yes.

That in a nutshell is what you are doing Victor. You are acting as 'agent provacateur' in this matter, having quite made up your own mind that the parents are guilty.
As I have said previously, along with others, we none of us know what's happened.
The parents may be guilty of murder, they may only be guilty of not looking after their children according to the law.
It is not our job to try them, nor yet to pronounce them guilty.
It is not you I am attacking it is you assumptions.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:50 PM

more reporting

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:52 PM

I don't think Victor is trying to get us all round to his way of thinking at all - he's just stating his opinion and sticking up for himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:56 PM

I thnik everyone oughta take a day off.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:56 PM

That's what I thnik.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 12:57 PM

Best suggestion yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:04 PM

The problem with you, Victor, is that you are a bit slow in understanding.

My last post just was making fun of the way you used the word "hope" in tow very different senses in one sentence.
The post before that linked to an opinion article not dealing with facts in any way (except being open minded about them), but with our, the public's, reaction to what we read. Try to understand the difference between facts and opinion. I dearly hope you do but I have little hope you do.

...selective media reports ... to support what we believed happened
Yes that's your way, most others here don't play the guessing game with little real information. I don't. But those few who do like you fit each bit of information they read into one scenario:
The McCanns don't search all over Europe like they did initially? Well, that only shows they know that the kid cannot be found. The McCann's restart searching? Well that only shows they try to detract the attention of those suspecting them.

It is not your opinion that makes you (and not others with similar opinions) a target here, Victor, it is the stupid way you argue. Like asking a stupid question as whether someone feels totally convinced the parents are innocent. I know I should only answer for myself but none here will answer unconditionally yes. It is one possible scenario, nothing else.

Are you happy with all the answers...?, is a similarly stupid question with only one possible answer. Start debating in a meaningful way and no one will jump on you for an opinion even if they tend to disagree with that opinion.

Try to realise that those who are not as convinced as you are that the parents are guilty do not try to select facts in support of one particular scenario like you do, but only try to support a particular way of debating by linking to articles about the debate and rather not (or rarely) to articles about facts.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 01:09 PM

I'm taking a day off. Great idea, Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 02:00 PM

Fine summary of the facts and factlets to date, dated and sourced, is here , in the Irish Times.

Wednesday is D-day.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:09 PM

"hope" is defined in my dictionary as
1 confident expectation that something desired may happen
and
2 expectation which has little chance of fulfilment

I fail to see any reason for poking fun at Victors's statement his meaning was obvious to all!

In addition Victor has been consistent throughout that he is expressing his "opinion" and has been open enough about his personal life to allow us to appreciate the origins of this opinion.

Now I'm content to give this whole tragic situation a "rest" as Peace has suggested (unlike the world's media) but I will defend someone's right to express non-malicious opinions without insult and artful attempts to suggest stupidity!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:18 PM

Wolfgang I repeat, you are entitled to your opinions.

Please keep your amateur psychology evaluations for those who care to read to them.

I myself don't feel the need for in-depth psychological assessments of my personality or thought pattern.

Possibly your time would be better served creating some heart wrenching thread which would give you the much needed public ovation and acclaim you so clearly require.

I don't consider myself slow on the up take Wolfgang, in fact I am very switched on to motivations of some individuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:19 PM

Now I'm content to give this whole tragic situation a "rest" as Peace has suggested (unlike the world's media) but I will defend someone's right to express non-malicious opinions without insult and artful attempts to suggest stupidity!

Agreed.

Have a good evening all.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:31 PM

Emma, you only have to read through some of Wolfgangs posts on other threads to see his attempts to belittle, insult by insinuation or imply his superiority or vast expanse of knowledge on a host of other subjects.

Thanks for your understanding, but I have met his type before.

I only express my opinions and state what I believe happened in this this case. I really would prefer to think of myself to be above personal insult and allow others to state their views of a very public case.

Some of the threads concerning the Iraq war or the politics of America allow viewpoints and assessments, something clearly not extended to me here.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:38 PM

See you Wednesday then!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 03:53 PM

I've found myself arguing with Wolfgang on other threads about various subjects. I've never been aware of "attempts to belittle, insult by insinuation" and so forth. Just of someone who is very committed to sticking to the demonstrable facts, and well able to spot holes in an argument.

Those are qualities which are not met with in an opponent all that often, and I value them.

This of course is thread drift. I would suggest that if anyone feels like turning the discussion to these kinds of issues - techniques of argument etc - it would be better to do so in a separate thread. Perhaps providing a link to it from here.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Alice
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:04 PM

Wolfgang is pointing out the difference between facts and opinion.

The subject of child neglect is very emotional and sometimes it is hard to
stick to facts and be objective with an emotional subject like this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:07 PM

I agree with McGrath Wolfgang and I are far apart politically but I admire his understanding of statistics and his refusal to bash people around with "facts"

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:20 PM

May I politely request that we not start taking votes as to whether Victor is slow and stupid or Wolfgang is insulting? That will certainly kill the thread.

Really - a break until the judge speaks on Wednesday might be beneficial.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:28 PM

Thank you heric, not too much argueing with reference to or understanding of either "statistics" or "facts" demonstrated by some folks here

Adéu

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jeanie
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 04:29 PM

From what I hear, we will not have to be waiting until Wednesday. Big news apparently going to break tomorrow (Monday) - press has been silenced over the weekend. More information on the Mirror forum for those that wish to see.

- jeanie

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:12 PM

More information on the Mirror forum

"information"? Well, perhaps...

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jeanie
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:31 PM

"Information ? Well, perhaps"....Agreed, McGrath, I forgot to add the all-important caveat of *allegedly*, although, if you are discerning, there are some people on there who I have found to have provided more genuine inside knowledge than others, ahead of the published/broadcast news, over the past months.

- jeanie

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 05:50 PM

A quote about this case that I think sums things up rather well. It comes from Linda Chamberlain-Creighton, who was jailed for killing her child in the Australian dingo baby case. Falsely accused and wrongly jailed, as it eventually turned out, after she'd spent long years in prison:

"It is as if we have run over the hour allotted for the 'show' and the viewers are saying: 'Where's the answer? When the public atmosphere is like this, questions of justice or truth start to take second place."

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:39 PM

What's wrong with this picture?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:46 PM

Nothing Peace I'm afraid! both tits and titilations sell "news" in the UK

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 16 Sep 07 - 08:47 PM

Thought it was a phone book.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jeanie
Date: 17 Sep 07 - 03:47 AM

That's a very apt quote, McGrath. I'm a bit old to have finally woken up to this, but having seen the way the media has handled this case (and not just the tabloids, either, but the so-called "quality press"), I will find it very difficult to ever again trust that the "news" I am presented with by press and TV bears any close resemblance to truth.

If this case ever does come to trial in Portugal, I am not sure whether they have a jury system over there. The media manipulation that has taken place in this case would be a very strong argument for a lawyer to suggest that a jury would find it difficult to make an unbiassed decision.

- jeanie

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 02:20 PM

Another case that weeks ago has been mentioned in the press in connection with Madeleine McCann has found the not unexpected sad end: Ylenia Lenhard's body has been found.

The never corroborated connection was that Ylenia's most likely murderer, Hans Urs von Aesch, lived in Spain at the time of Madeleine's disappearance and "might have" been in Portugal. This connection never left the "might have" status as far as I know.

Ylenia Lenhard fits also the theme of this thread. A 5 and 1/2 year old girl cyles alone to the local swimming pool and never comes back. Her mother reared the child on her own and rather often allowed Ylenia to do things on her own. I can understand she did that but I'm sure she's devastated now.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 02:41 PM

I would never allow a 5.5 year old to venture anywhere alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 02:58 PM

According to Sky News the McCanns will not be questioned, AND: "This means that the investigation file has come back from the judge to the prosecutors with his comments."

In other words, we apparently don't get to hear any pronouncements from Judge Frias.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 03:06 PM

Heric, I'm sure I read today that he is expected to make the pronouncements tomorrow. I could have got it wrong though.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 03:19 PM

I've found the link for my last post.

where I read it

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 19 Sep 07 - 04:29 PM

Wolfgang, I mentioned Ylenia Lenhard in my post on 16 September 11.46am. You're right, it does fit this theme, someone so young cycling to the swimming pool on her own. Presumably she was going to use the pool on her own as well?

I think its interesting that her body may not have been found if her murderer had not shot somebody else and then killed himself. Apparently a member of the public continued looking in the woods once the police had given up, and he found her.

Perhaps if her killer has any connection with Madeleine's disappearance then the police may have more chance to discover that now that they have found her body.

Very sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 06:08 AM

My mistake, eanjay. I did a search on the thread whether Ylenia had been mentioned and must have mistyped the name to overlook your post.

Von Aesch may be responsible for several murders and disappearances the police thinks. While he was living in Thurgau, a Swiss Canton, there were several murders and disappearances of little girls that stopped when he moved to Spain. But all those are just guesses with no evidence yet, other than in Ylenia's case.

Kat, would you let an 8 year old girl walk alone for 1 km (2/3 of a mile) in a big City? That is in Germany the newest disappearance case with no body yet but an arrested suspect?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 07:54 AM

Ylenia's mother in an interview today (my translation):
Q: Are you blaming yourself?
A: Blaming myself? There is no need for that. She (Ylenia) isn't to blame and neither am I. She was just at the wrong time at the wrong place. But still one asks oneself questions: If it had rained that day she wouldn't have fetched the shampoo (she had forgotten the shampoo at the pool the day before. W.). For it was her idea not mine. She said spontaneously: "Shall I fetch it?" And I said: "Yes, fine". Five minutes later she went. Yes, if it had rained or if the shampoo would have been empty, then she'd be still alive.

(The pool was 1 km away from her home)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:04 AM

Thanks for posting that part of the interview, Wolfgang. I hadn't seen any of it.

It is amazing what convenient minds people who are irresponsible in their parenting have. I'm sure I would be riddled with guilt and in need of counselling for years!

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?

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 12:57 PM

No insult intended, which should mean no insult received, Black Hawk. But I know from quite a lot of life experience that people do often deceive themselves about this kind of thing. Even if we can be sure about ourselves, we've no way of being as sure about other people who say they are sure.

Whether it's a matter of driving a car or looking after children, human beings do silly things sometimes, and most times they get away with it, and sometimes they don't, and the result can be terrible. But when they get away with it they are likely to forget all about it.
..............................

Wesley, you must have been speedreading the previous posts Liz made. As she has indicated, the point is there are laws about endangering children, but they don't specifically state what exactly counts as endangering children. They leave that to the courts to decide on an individual basis when a prosecution is made - and leaving young children alone would be the kind of thing that courts would be liable to be deciding did involve endangering children.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 01:01 PM

"There is no UK law stating the age at which a child can be left at home alone. However, parents can be prosecuted for wilful neglect if they leave a child alone or unsupervised "in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health" (Children and Young Persons Act 1933)."

"Babies should never be left alone, even for a short time. If you notice that a baby or a child under the age of nine has been left on their own, contact the police on 999. They will go to the house to make sure that the child is safe from harm."

"Before leaving an older child alone, parents must take into account the child's age and maturity, their ability to cope in an emergency and how they feel about being left alone. Most children under the age of 13 are not mature enough to cope in an emergency and should not be left alone for more than a short time."

From the NSPCC help and advice page

Many parents who lack support from others or who are in difficulties of some kind (the financial necessity to work etc) may sometimes have to make difficult decisions. In my experience I don't think such circumstances would ever be deemed to be "wilful" neglect and any "authority" involved would attempt to see that the parent received appropiate help.

I still maintain however that leaving three children under the age of 4 alone in a strange environment (and refusing the baby sitting service readily available) to go out each evening drinking with friends is unacceptable behaviour; not the least as these "professional" parents would be well aware of the guidelines.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Black Hawk unlogged
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 01:18 PM

McGrath - Okay! We are both allowed our opinions but you seemed to be insinuating I have done the same with my children.

Let me clarify.

YOU seem to think it reasonable / normal to leave young children alone!

I do not! Why?

Possible / likely scenario.

One 4yr old child
Two 2yr old twins

Parent checks all asleep! OK.
Leaves room.
On shutting door, makes slight noise.
This noise disturbs 1 twin who gets restless.
Restlessness leads to waking.
2yr old wakes up, cries / calls for parent
Cries wake other twin & older child.
Discovering they are alone & ignored they panic.
Within minutes of the parent leaving you now have a scared / panicking 4yr old in charge of scared / panicking 2yr old twins.

And YOU think this is OK?

I do not wish to continue this particular train of debate as I will never agree that it is reasonable or standard practice.
You may act as your conscience dictates!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 01:36 PM

And there are an awful lot of bad drivers on the roads, and an awful lot of parents who smoke in the presence of their children, That's not "OK" either, nor is it "reasonable or standard practice".

But that doesn't mean those things are particularly unusual, or that the people involved are not in other ways perfectly normal people. Normal people acting stupidly.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 01:44 PM

A story from the St. Petersburg (Fla) Times today. Seems to fit the theme.

Boy, 2, found home alone, strapped to high chair

A 22-year-old Seffner woman was arrested Tuesday, charged with child neglect after leaving her 2-year-old son home alone and strapped to a high chair, authorities said.

A Hillsborough sheriff's deputy who had been to Stephanie Paige Thigpen's home earlier Tuesday morning later saw her at a gas station. The deputy asked about her son, who he had seen earlier, awake and playing. Thigpen admitted he was home alone, but said a drunk neighbor was listening out for him, according to a Sheriff's Office release.

The deputy went back to her home and found the boy strapped to the high chair. He arrested Thigpen when she returned. She was taken to the Orient Road Jail. Her son was placed with family members.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 01:52 PM

Of course, parents are not perfect.

As a single parent (looking back) I am grateful that my children somehow managed to survive the experience. There were plenty of times that they rode in the back of the truck (seatbelts were unheard of), when I smoked in the same room, occasionally fed them junk food, allowed them to watch too much t.v. and when I left them alone during a nap to finish a chore outside or run down the block.

Times have changed and these are two educated people who should have known that its not O.K. to leave three, young children unattended while you go for a drink. They also had the advantage of being able to afford a babysitter and a babysitter was available. There were also two of them! If they wanted to socialize but didn't want to hire a sitter, why didn't they go to the bar in shifts?

I am sure they are devastated but that doesn't mean they aren't guilty of neglect.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 02:02 PM

There are a lot of "bad" drivers on the roads but in looking at legislation to define "dangerous driving" there is a real distinction between the two.                                    

People do not "wilfully" act carelessly. If it was a wilful act, it could be prosecuted under the dangerous driving provisions.

For example while it is not an offence to drive when tired (although a driver is more likely to commit a driving offence while tired) this could result in a serious conviction, such as causing death by dangerous driving.

As the law stands at the moment childminders will not be prevented from smoking anywhere within their own home, only from smoking in front of the children being cared for.
So far as I'm aware this is no legislation relating to smoking in front of one's own children...........yet!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 05:17 PM

McGrath says

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.

From this Black Hawk deduces that he is a bad parent who thinks it is reasonable to leave young children alone. Not only that McG is accused of insulting BH and subject to a torrent of abuse.

I am sure McGrath can look after himself but I would like to know how that works? Feeling particularly sensitive about anything Black Hawk? Bad day at work? Maybe realising that never doing anything wrong includes never jumping to ridiculous conclusions?

This thread never was and never will be about the rights and wrongs of leaving young children alone. It is simply a way of venting feelings against those perceived as wrongdoers by those who want to feel superior. Maybe those same people who never did or ever will do anything wrong?

Why don't we just put a stop to the speculation now and hang the McCanns? After all the Mudcat obviously knows more than the justice system in two countries. On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, until they ARE convicted of anything people can just stop twisting the knife?

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 05:30 PM

Never once have I accused the McCanns of doing anything more than wilfully neglecting their children (it appears their friends did the same too - including one child who was "sick")

What I might accuse them of in addition is a series of inconsistent "stories" about the distance they were away, the time and the number of occasions and the ability to manipulate the press and gullible public to donate to a business whose directors are family and frinds and whose funds cannot be used for charitable reasons other than to finacially support the parents to visit the Pope etc and pay for PR spin doctors until their daughter is found!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 06:43 PM

What I might accuse them of...

I can't see what's the point, or the merit, in putting ourselves up on some kind of judgement seat on a situation where all we "know" has been selected and filtered through a distorted media feeding frenzy.

The only thing of value to take from this is to remind ourselves to take a good look at what we do ourselves when it comes to acting prudently and responsibly towards those in our care. Willfully, carelessly, casually, whatever. And not to fool ourselves that just because we might not be stupid in one way that doesn't mean we might not be stupid in some other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Black Hawk unlogged
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 07:26 PM

I said I did not want to get into an argument but obviously some people cant leave well alone!

Dave Polshaw From this Black Hawk deduces that he is a bad parent who thinks it is reasonable to leave young children alone. Not only that McG is accused of insulting BH and subject to a torrent of abuse.
I have not accused him of being a bad parent. I do not know if he is a parent, married or gay so why should I.
Could you please quote this 'torrent of abuse'.

Feeling particularly sensitive about anything Black Hawk? Bad day at work? Maybe realising that never doing anything wrong includes never jumping to ridiculous conclusions?
I am only sensitive about the fact that lots of people seem to think it OK to leave young children alone. You insulting me on behalf of another only makes you out to be an intolerant person. I took offence at the inference that I am putting myself above reproach. I, like anyone else, have made mistakes. BUT, I have never left my children alone.

As to hanging the McCanns? You brought that up, not me.
No matter what they have or have not done, they admit they left their children alone.
THAT IS A MISTAKE THEY WILL PAY FOR FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES but I take no joy from it.
This thread is not supposed to be about the McCanns but about child neglect.
My original post was in response to the post concerning the way British newspapers were handling the story.
Let me end by asking you and McGrath a simple question.
Do you think it was OK to leave the 3 children alone?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 09:10 PM

I thought I was making a distinction between careless/stupid and "wilful"

Of course we all do careless and stupid things but, for example, I've never wilfully driven without insurance or a licence or even at 90mph in a residential area and I certainly would never do so with young children in the passenger seat - or anyone else for that matter!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 07 - 09:15 PM

'That's not "OK" either' was pretty unambiguous. That's what "either" very clearly indicated.

Of course it's not OK - but nor are an awful lot of things that people do in the course of their lives.including some which are every bit as dangerous.

I think we should pay attention to the mistakes we make ourselves rather than the mistakes other people make.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: mg
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 12:25 AM

We have to pay attention to the mistakes other people make as they have to pay attention to those we make. That is what societies do, for better or for worse..and it keeps the worst things from being done, by and large..or at least reduced. If we only self-monitored, we would feel justified in most of our behavior, the envelopes for socially damaging behavior would be pushed and pushed, as they are nowadays...at some time we have to rise up and say no, you can not do that...or people have to rise up and tell us, no you can not do that...and there is no shortage of stupid and/or selfish people who can't or won't impose limits on themselves so society has to act as a boundary setter..or there will be increasing chaos and increasing child neglect..which there is. Which this situation is. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 03:00 AM

Is it OK to leave 3 children alone?

I do not believe I am in a position to judge that. Do you?

BUT, I have never left my children alone.

I took offence at the inference that I am putting myself above reproach

No inference at all in the first statement. You are putting yourself above reproach. If people take you to task for something you blatantly do why take offence at it?

I said I did not want to get into an argument

Look back up the thread BH - This argument is firmly yours. If you did not want to argue why start it? Another wrongdoing you will not admit to maybe?

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 05:19 AM

"This thread never was and never will be about the rights and wrongs of leaving young children alone. It is simply a way of venting feelings against those perceived as wrongdoers by those who want to feel superior. Maybe those same people who never did or ever will do anything wrong?"

Wise words indeed Dave Polshaw. There is more than a smidgeon of terminal smugness in some of the repetitious posts on this thread. A sort of 'I am without sin; let me cast the first stone' attitude.

I wish the thread had never been re-opened, as all that is happening is almost the same people as before, repeating EXACTLY the same views.
I for one am beginning to have dread reminiscences of too many of Shambles repetitious threads.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 05:48 AM

At the risk of appearing "repetitive" by repeating what has been said on many other threads - if you don't want to read a thread - don't open it!
If you want to leave a thread to drop off the bottom - don't add to it!
However if you really want to be "holier than thou".........

Many threads reiterate the same arguments from different perspectives . I have found some of them interesting and ignored the ones that I haven't. It isn't difficult!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 07:53 AM

all that is happening is almost the same people as before, repeating EXACTLY the same views

Which is EXACTLY what you are doing. That is the very reason that I have dropped off the thread. I've made my point. You CONTINUE to make yours.

You do have a choice. I certainly am going to try not to reply to anything else on this thread - however ridiculous it is. In fact, I probably won't open this thread again after this post. Why don't you do the same and stop moaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 08:11 AM

The defining features of the "Shambles threads" were (often very offensive) name calling and personal attacks as a substitute for debate; I admit I'm beginning to see some similarities too

They would also provide fascinating entertainment for anyone with a perverse pleasure in counting posts from any single individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 08:15 AM

Oh dear, the Valkyries descend.
Remember who it was that started this thread!
Or does your selective memory choose to ignore your bogus absence?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 08:23 AM

"The Valkyries ("Choosers of the Slain") are beautiful young women, mounted upon winged horses and armed with helmets and spears. Odin needs many brave warriors for the oncoming battle of Ragnarok, and the Valkyries scout the battlefields to choose the bravest of those who have been slain. They escort these heroes, called the Einherjar to Valhalla, Odin's hall"

Well thank you Giok! :)

I have not forgotten who started this thread thank you and from the "torrent of abuse" that was heaped on my head as a reult I'm glad that I did it in my consistent guest name at that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 08:30 AM

Real Valkyries
G ¦¬]

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 08:36 AM

now I wouldn't mind being compared to one of those "beauties" either :)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 04:51 PM

ROF here.....oh my goodness! Only on Mudcat could it go from child neglect/abuse to motorbikes! Hee hee!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 04:54 PM

Yup, we're nothing if not unique.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 07 - 07:13 PM

"beautiful young women" - well, not necessarily: "The Valkyrie is, in the oldest strata of belief, a corpse goddess, represented by the carrion-eating raven. The name in Old Norse, valkyrja, means literally, "chooser of the slain." The Valkyrie is related to the Celtic warrior-goddess, the Morrigan, who likewise may assume the form of the raven. (From here)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 10:39 AM

Interesting.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2296203136219895848&hl=en-GB

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 11:11 AM

Libellous speculation.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 12:48 PM

I somehow doubt it, maybe you should watch it again John.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 06:42 PM

I somehow doubt it Surprise surprise...

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 07:05 PM

it's just unanswered questions and nice music too!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 09:53 AM

And they are VERY important questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 12:31 PM

In the unlikely event any of us are on a jury in this case, I'm sure we'll examine them very closely.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 12:40 PM

Some people don't need to go to the expense of a trial McGrath, they have them found guilty, and condemned them already.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:08 PM

Pretty much everything in society is now based on a cost risk benefit analysis.

If it is more dangerous to drive a 6 year old to moms work in the morning rather than stay in bed for 30 minutes in the morning, one would think that it is legal.

Leaving a sleeping child alone does put them at risk of a house fire for 30 minutes but it is less risk than from a car accident.

Is it legal for me to leave a child at home under these circumstances?

PRobably not.

I have to put them in the street in a m9oving vehicle during rush hour to obey the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 02:47 PM

I think I've already pointed out a couple of times Donuel that all parents have to make difficult choices from time to time.

Most people follow whatever guidelines/legislation suggest "best care" or "least risk" which means, for example, ensuring that a child is secured safely during a car journey and the parent drives with "due care and attention" staying within the speed and drink driving limits.

My arguement throughout this thread has been to look at where parental irresponsibility (where other options are readily available) could be legally interpreted as "neglect".

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 05:51 PM

The McCann's appeared on Spanish TV tonight. The respected station Antena 3 gave them as easy ride. It was stomach turning.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 05:53 PM

Only if you are convinced they're guilty

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 06:15 PM

Which I am. A national newspaper stated recently that support and sympathy for the McCann's was at an all time low Rab.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 07:09 AM

Burn the witch!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 08:13 AM

Wouldn't go that far. When the truth comes out(and it will) they will face prosecution and I imagine the other members of the "holiday boozing group" will sing like canaries to save their own skins.

That will be nothing compared to the wrath of the British public.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:29 AM

I have no idea what the McCanns may or may not be guilty of other than neglect and a series of very discrepent accounts with reference to where they were and for how long.

This latest report however may be a step too far IMHO

'Kate McCann 'wants a job in child welfare'

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:35 AM

"Kate McCann is considering a new career in child welfare, it was claimed yesterday."

Nothing to back it up of course, like so many other accusations!

G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 10:50 AM

Well I was unaware it was an "accusation" but the "claim" seems to have come, as usual, from that well known source "friends" of the McCanns.

Wasn't that what their "spokesman" Clarence Mitchell was euphemistically called in a number of such "claims"

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 11:19 AM

I imagine they would be queuing up to have her in the profession. It would be like asking Eugene Terre'Blanche to deal with the coloured kids.

Maybe she just wants to be a patron, possibly a sleeping partner ? well at least parents would get out a lot more if they took her advice or example ?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 12:10 PM

I've watched the video twice. Nice music. The rest is pathetic. I wonder how anyone can be impressed by it.
Many of the questions are presuppositional questions.
Some questions are not really questions but statements in question form. Consequently, such "questions" end not with a question mark but with two or three exclamation marks.
Some "questions" have known responses and are completely superfluous.
The video never even once clearly states what point it is making.
Some insinuations are utterly stupid, like for instance the "Glaswegian connection".
The "one last question" bit was followed by three or four more questions.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 01:13 PM

"the only fact we do know"

on the same youtube page there is a video in reply
The Real Madeleine Mccann Story - Tapas
From: TruthorLies26

the first "discrepent account" .........

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 02:26 PM

That video is a bit long for making a very simple point, but though it is overly long it fails to mention even once the crucial double meaning of the word "distance".
It can mean the distance to walk to a place or the trigonometric distance.

The walking distance to the apartment is 120 m, the trigonometric distance is 65 m which is not that far from the "50 yards" guess of McCann. Even closer would be the projection of the trigonometric distance to the ground level which is how people often guess distances.

As long as one doesn't know to which kind of distance McCann refers in that interview one cannot know whether there is any real discrepancy worth mentioning. A four minutes long video that fails to note this obvious point isn't very convincing.

BTW, 50 yards or 200 m are both too far to notice an intruder or crying.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 02:37 PM

The problem here Wolfgang is that this was never reported as a "guess" or "as the bird flies" but as a statement of "fact" in the media.

What WAS consistently reported was the anaology between it's like eating in your garden or downstairs or going to your garage when your children are sleeping in their own bedroom in the house.

However it was just the first of many such discrepencies in subsequent statements all reported as "facts" by a cynical and skillfully manipulated media.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 03:53 PM

Simple truth is two adults left three young children alone and went out to a booze party. FACT

They refused a baby sitting service and choose to leave their children in a strange environment without supervision. FACT

Anyone who acts this irresponsibly does not deserve the understanding and sympathy of anyone, unless they did the same themselves on occasion in that case I can see where you are coming from.

Leaving three children under the age of four alone is a crime. I hope they face charges for this.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 03:55 PM

It's wrong, but it's not a crime, no matter how much you wish it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 04:03 PM

Young children would need to be supervised on those tiled steps.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 04:31 PM

"There is no UK law stating the age at which a child can be left at home alone. However, parents can be prosecuted for wilful neglect if they leave a child alone or unsupervised "in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health" (Children and Young Persons Act 1933). "

from the NSPCC website

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 04:31 PM

It is an offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to neglect or abandon a child under the age of 16 for whom a parent or carer has responsibility, but the law gives no detail of what amounts to neglect or abandonment. Prosecution and/or conviction depend largely on the circumstances. The punishment can range from a fine to ten years' imprisonment.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mississippi Saxaphone
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 04:48 PM

It's wrong, but it's not a crime

My understanding is that if children are put in danger through the parents' actions (assuming those parents have all their faculties) then a criminal act is committed and no-one, irrespective of what power or influence they may have over a situation, can be exempt from prosecution. The child in question was put in a situation by the parents that resulted in her being put in danger.

I hope the legal system wakes up and does its duty without further delay.

Should my understanding of the legal situation be incorrect then could someone please quote, verbatim, the relevant act of parliament and the section thereof that allows such irresponsible actions without the risk of prosecution.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:12 PM

LSCBs (Local safeguarding Children Boards) were established in every local authority from April 2006 to replace the previous non- statutory bodies. They work to ensure that local organisations cooperate to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and that the work carried out is effective.

One such board gives this as information for parents ...

"Parents who leave their children unsupervised could be prosecuted for wilful neglect. They could also become subject to a child protection enquiry by the police and social services if their children suffer harm or injury. Neglect is when a parent or carer fails to meet a child's basic needs, including proper supervision."

I have maintained throughout that the abscence of proper supervision in this instance was as "wilful" as it was unnecessary, given the number of adults in the party and the availability of baby sitting services.
The door was left open and, has been pointed out, those steps in the dark, could be lethal for a disorientated child waking in a strange environment and going in search of her "carers".

However this was not just one final meal in a restaurant but a pattern of night time drinking in a bar, at least one other holidaymaker reports hearing a child crying in the apartment for over an hour on a previous evening.

Save your sympathy for this child please.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:15 PM

Link as given earlier in this thread.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mississippi Saxaphone
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:22 PM

The child is missing! If the correct supervision had been in place the child would not be missing.

It is not an accident that she is missing.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:51 PM

I am lost why some people search to defend of the McCanns. They did commit a crime by leaving their children alone.

I somehow doubt a single mother from Bolton would receive the same level of understanding here from certain individuals had she been as reckless.

Sad really how some people appear to be impressed by the McCanns social and professional standing.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 06:01 PM

Almost as sad as people believing what they read in the newspapers in fact.
Surely we're not going to bring class envy into this kangaroo court as well are we?
I for one have no axe to grind on behalf of the McCanns, but I cannot stand by and see people vilified, and slandered in the name of self righteousness.
Let the proper authorities decide the outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 06:08 PM

are you sure it wasn't to also to meet the requirement "In the same way as it is difficult to resist having a dig at ones enemies."?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 06:12 PM

I have no enemies, just suffer a little from people with terminal hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 06:21 PM

Are you quite certain about that?

Victor, I'm with you here....something is rotten and not in Denmark.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 06:22 PM

Yes terminal hypocrisy and a multiple personality disorder are difficult things to comprehend Rab.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: skarpi
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 08:20 PM

.something is rotten and not in Denmark ?

people should look in their own backyard before judge others

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 08:29 PM

Would you please like to explain that skarpi?

What is your opinion on the subject under discussion? - do you believe that it is ok to leave 3 children under 4 years of age unsupervised for several evenings while their parents drink with friends?

Or what do you mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: skarpi
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:17 AM

something is rotten and not in Denmark ?

people should look in their own backyard before judge others


I dont have to explain it , is says everything that has to be said.

and I have no right what so ever to judge the McCanns .


All the best Skarpi

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:28 AM

"Judging Actions, Judging People " a philosophical approach

One of the barriers to robust moral discourse in our society is a reluctance on the part of people to make clear judgments about the actions of others, even when the actions are clearly wrong.

One primary reason for reticence is a confusion over what gets judged. It is actions, not people, that are morally right or morally wrong. Everyone does things that are admirable and other things that are deplorable. A person who does a bad thing is not thereby rendered a bad person, just someone who did something wrong.

It is argued that one cannot judge unless one is him or herself flawless, that judging the acts or character of someone else is to put onself above someone else, to claim some sense of moral superiority. "Who are you to judge someone else?"                This is where such moralizers have poisoned the 'intellectual well'. We refuse to think carefully about the acts and characters of others because we feel we are "unqualified"

Furthermore,if our "judgment" disagrees with those of the high horse moralizers, it is not seen as an invitation to think carefully and discuss closely the details of an intricate moral question, but rather evidence in and of itself of a flaw in our character.       So, to avoid this, too many of us fail to "judge", fail to think hard about moral questions.

I make no apoplogies for "judging" the ACTIONS of the McCanns in this particular instance. Indeed I feel that I would be condoning wilful neglect of children if I failed to do so.

I hope this explains what I mean, in reflection rather than
"reflex"

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Neovo
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:35 AM

I see Gerry McCann is contemplating returning to his £75K a year job. I think he could have afforded the babysitter don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 09:11 AM

OK, Skarpi....I checked my backyard. No missing or dead children, no English doctors, no footsie drinking games (those are kept inside)and nothing hiding under rocks except worms.

There is something smelly though. Dog poop. Somebody needs to clean it up. And we will. Soon. Just waiting on enough daylight to see it.









PS--There were no Danes in my backyard either. Rotten,smelly or otherwise

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Peace Keeper
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 10:28 AM

This really does put things in perspective.

Subject: RE: The frustration of not responding
From: John 'Giok' MacKenzie - PM
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:55 PM

I don't know Kevin. It is almost impossible to let a lie or an unfair remark go unanswered.
It is also a natural impulse to come to the aid of your friends.
In the same way as it is difficult to resist having a dig at ones enemies.
Put it down to human nature, ignorance, prejudice, whatever.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 31 Oct 07 - 01:22 PM

I hadn't planned to return to this thread but I was reading this (an entirely different case) and thought I would post it. It really is a tragic case.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306556,00.html

Sorry I haven't done a link but I'm having real problems with Internet Explorer at the moment and everytime I try I end up in "not responding" mode!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 01:35 PM

Parents feeling pressure of the McCann factor

We have become hyper-vigilant about children's safety ...
parents (have) a "disproportionate fear" of their children being abducted by a stranger. "I think the instant global coverage of Madeleine McCann gave you a disproportionate fear, even if your commonsense tells you otherwise"...
Parenting experts say a "culture of fear" has exaggerated the dangers youngsters face. However, they believe over-protection of children may lead to them becoming less streetwise.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 01:48 PM

An interesting article Woflgang and I fear very true.

The comment by Kristina Woolnough, head of support group Parents in Partnership, is particularly sad.

"Everybody lives such busy lives these days. Parents find they are running from pillar to post and have so little time to let their kids out to play. This has the effect of shrinking their imaginations, and making them less confident.

"There is a culture of fear, but that is too often used an excuse by people who are simply too busy."

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Jul 08 - 07:37 PM

According to THIS ARTICLE the Portuguese authorities have shelved the case file for Madeleine and said her parents are no longer suspects in her disappearance. Apparently, because of that, the parents' private investigators and lawyer will now be able to look at the police files to see if there are any clues which would help them to find her.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 07:09 PM

So are Israels and Gazas.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Black Hawk unlogged
Date: 13 May 11 - 04:31 AM

Scotland Yard are to "bring their expertise" to the search for Madeleine McCann after a personal request from the Prime Minister.
A Home Office spokesman said: "The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have today agreed with Sir Paul Stephenson that the Metropolitan Police will bring its particular expertise to this case."
The spokesman added that the Government hopes Scotland Yard can bring a new perspective to the case and the Home Office will be providing "the necessary financial support".
He went on: "The Government's primary concern has always been and remains the safe return of Madeleine.
"Although she disappeared in Portugal, and the Portuguese retain the lead responsibility in the case, law enforcement agencies here have continued to follow up leads and pass information to the Portuguese authorities as appropriate."
He added that it would not be appropriate to discuss details at this stage.
The move comes after Kate and Gerry McCann hit out at the actions of the Home Office, saying it had offered "words, but no action" to assist them in the investigation.

Why not just ask the parents to admit they killed their daughter with an accidental overdose ?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 13 May 11 - 05:32 AM

I wonder if the welfare of the remaining twins continue to be monitored as a matter of caution? I am not pointing the finger or accusing anyone of anything but I would be interested to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Black Hawk unlogged
Date: 13 May 11 - 08:38 AM

If they weren't 'professional', upper middle class £100k each per year doctors, Social services would have been all over them like a rash, for repeatedly leaving a 3 YEAR OLD infant unattended, time and again, whilst they went out "Wining and Dining"...'on the lash' as it's known amongst lesser people. Any re-looking at the case starts with that point....do we also need to know about their sex lives, as graphically referred to in their book which came out YESTERDAY.

It's an absolute disgrace they should have been prosecuted for child neglect no one else would have got away without prosecution. Their non verbal communication echoes guilt. No parent in their right minds would have left children unsupervised. There is definitely more to this than people think the whole thing stinks of a cover up by the parents. they call themselves professional people, how totally irresponsible to leave their children and in a foreign country.