BS: Child neglect and the law

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.

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 - 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: Sorcha
Date: 12 Jan 09 - 07:09 PM

So are Israels and Gazas.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:01 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:29 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 07 - 06:42 PM

I somehow doubt it Surprise surprise...