BS: Child neglect and the law

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: 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 - 10:39 AM

Interesting.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2296203136219895848&hl=en-GB

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:23 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 - 08:15 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 - 08:11 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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: Emma B
Date: 02 Oct 07 - 11:55 AM

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

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: 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: 01 Oct 07 - 01:21 PM

We could count adjectives.

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:28 AM

Thank you.

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!