BS: Child neglect and the law

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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 - 06:05 PM

The other two children were both 2 years old.

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 - 04:41 PM

Agree, I didn't word it very well!

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: heric
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:15 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: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:42 AM

How do you PM a guest 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: 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.