 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Child neglect and the law
|
|
|
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.
-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 |
