BS: Child neglect and the law

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 01:41 PM

That might be quite an interesting permathread too. Any time someone felt targetted by a petty remark they'd just post a link to that thread, instead of allowing the original thread to drift into a battle about petty remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 01:33 PM

If you want to start being petty I suggest you start a petty remarks thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 01:30 PM

So why did you need to speak on her (or his) behalf Giok? are you accountable for the counter ?

There have been many threads on mudcat with multiple postings from the same person - some to the point of ad nauseum.

I think it is an unfortunate precedent to single out any individual for public criticism in this way and maybe it's a lot easier to see the mote in someone else's eye!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Sep 07 - 01:09 PM

If you read my post you will see that I did not count the posts, someone else mentioned it.
Once again you have got your facts wrong.
I too am glad you're not in charge of anything!
Funny thing isn't it, someone makes a remark, and within a short time there are copycats around, no minds of their own some people.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Sep 07 - 08:27 PM

We all have our Opinions and we all are entitled to them. We are also entitled to speak our opinions on a PUBLIC forum but I rather doubt that any of us will ever sit on a jury during a trial (IF it ever happens) of Madelines' abductor or murderer. Personally, I wouldn't even want to.

Evidence, people, evidence is what will count in the end.

The Truth may out, but remember Jon Benet Ramsey? Her killer has never been found or tried and they even had a body to work with.

I also wasn't aware that anyone actually keeps track of the number of postings from anyone. Is this a new thing, Giok? And are you in charge of counting? I guess I'm glad I'm not! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: bobad
Date: 23 Sep 07 - 11:42 AM

The senior detective leading the Madeleine McCann investigation is facing calls to step down after a woman jailed for the murder of her daughter claimed that his officers tortured her into confessing.

Leonor Cipriano, 36, told for the first time how she was forced to kneel on glass ashtrays with a bag over her head as police repeatedly hit her during almost 48 hours of nonstop questioning.

She is now serving a 16-year sentence for the murder of her eight-year-old daughter Joana, even though the body has never been found and she has since retracted her statement.

Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral, who is jointly leading the Madeleine case, is to face a criminal hearing for allegedly concealing evidence that three of his colleagues tortured Cipriano. The hearing could be as early as next month.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2511981.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 10:58 AM

I appreciate the input of both Kat and patty, thanks for your observations.

Considering it's me being called everything from a Ghoul to stupid, I have no problem with any of these names if that is their choice of a reply.

The thread has remained civil in comparison to a lot of other sites discussing the case.

Let's accept and allow everyone to hold an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 10:34 AM

It was a suggestion, folks, okay? Jaysus! Have at it anywhere you like, I don't particularly care; was just reminding folks of what some have done in the past when things got too personal.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,patty o'dawes
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 10:11 AM

I have read this thread through it's entirety. And although it is an emotive issue it is a discussion being held on a discussion board. I do not see the merit in using pm's in this discussion or any other where people disagree. Is everyone meant to hold the same opinion?

It hasn't degenerated into personal abuse and bearing in mind the subject it has stayed remarkably civilised. If it makes unpleasant reading for anyone they have the option not to read it?

Or is that too simple?

My personal opinion of the case is based on no factual knowledge and as such changes day to day. My only unchanging opinion is that children should never be left alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 10:08 AM

The title of this thread is Child Neglect and the Law. I'm just pointing out, regardless of ANY case, past, present or personal, that there IS NO LAW in the UK telling us when we can legally leave our children alone.

There ARE guidelines, there are offences under the Child Protection Act, but there ARE NO LAWS against leaving a toddler alone.

Anyone saying that the McCanns or any other family broke the law by leaving their children alone, is misunderstanding the difference between law and guidelines.

You're right Ake - it should be illegal to leave children under a particular age alone, but unfortunately, it isn't, it's impractical to enforce and in some cases as documented above, impossible to adhere to without major lifestyle difficulties.

My grip is secure enough, thank you.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 10:01 AM

It has often been the way at Mudcat that personal disagreements be taken to PMs with the hopes people would work out their diffrences.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 09:40 AM

...with the door open...

Yet again, jumping ahead of what is actually known for sure. What Mr McCann has said is that they had intended to lock and close the door, and thought they had. When he went back to check he found the door ajar, and assumed that they'd failed to close it properly earlier, and did so when he left (which with a spring lock would be the same as locking it). Subsequently he has come to believe that an abductor had opened the door, and was hiding in the flat while he was there.

Of course all that could be lies - but it is not particularly improbable. I think that most people finding a door open in such circumstances would be likely to think the same as Mr McCann says he did in this version of events. They'd think they'd been a bit careless, and breathe a sigh of relief nothing terrible had happened as a result.

akenaton's assumption that the door was left open by the parents is just that, an assumption.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 08:59 AM

Get a grip Liz....What kind of idiots leave very young children asleep in a strange room and a strange country with the door open.

Young children should never be left alone in a strange place, but if they are, tyhe most likely disaster is for them to waken, open the door and go looking for mum.

If it's not a crime it fuckin' well should be....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 08:35 AM

Try reading the link you sent. IT IS NOT A LAW, IT IS A GUIDELINE!

"The NSPCC have issued guidelines advising that children under the age of 13 should not be left alone. While this recommendation does not have the force of law, it is suggested as good practice. Children under this age are not mature or responsible enough to be left alone, maybe particularly so if they are physically disabled or have a learning disability."

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 08:24 AM

Not sure.

http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=221,196332&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 04:36 AM

Yep.. it may be an offence, but it's not illegal.

Saying 'fuck' in public is offensive, but not illegal.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,concerned
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 04:31 AM

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/helpandadvice/parentsandcarers/homealone/homealone_wda35965.html
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1762734.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 03:49 AM

The FACT is, and I posted this WAY up at the beginning and again further down....

There is no law in England that say you must never leave your child alone - there are only guidelines and advice.

There is also no such thing as a 'child friendly country'. There are restaurants where you can take children to eat all over the world, where you can have a good time every night if you want. I took my own child to many restaurants in Great Britain and had a good time.

There are laws about giving alcohol to children; laws about being drunk in charge of a child under 7; laws about who can work with children; laws about where children can be taken; laws concerning children about posting on the Internet. But there are only recommendations about leaving children alone, except in two American States. If there are UK laws, I'd be interested to see where they are publicised, because I've looked for days and not found any.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 22 Sep 07 - 02:50 AM

The trouble is that even when some people state FACTS, if those facts are the ones that others don't wish to consider then the tone from some is not very pleasant.

I, for one, am not keen on this idea that people might send each other "sniping" PMs. The only PMs that I have ever had have all been really nice and I would like to keep it that way, for myself and others.

Perhaps, if we could all respect each others opinion and maybe start fresh from this point, or have another break like Peace suggested before.

I'm going to have a natural break anyway because I'm off to the Otley festival today. My husband is playing in one of the pubs there this afternoon.

Have a good day everyone and I mean that.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 09:21 PM

lol

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:42 PM

Check your facts is a good principle in any kind of discussion. And don't go beyond them in any assertion, that is another.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:26 PM

Now COME ON COME ON heric, did they actually say DO YOU WANT TO BE IN MY GANG ? which one said DO YOU WANNA TOUCH ? or was it OH YES YOUR BEAUTIFUL ? well maybe they had A LITLLE BOOGIE WOOGIE in the back of their mind.

Well possibly someone wished he would REMEMBER ME THIS WAY.
possibly your were nicer about it than they are to me ?
signed ALWAYS YOURS.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:16 PM

I think you'll find a thread where they were staunch defenders of Gary Glitter when he was accused but not convicted.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 05:55 PM

I put a simple question earlier to the Tapas Bar two, and never got an answer.

I repeat, have you ever voiced your opinion on any thread on this site ?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 05:30 PM

Gag me with a fuckin' spoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 05:13 PM

I guess as a joe clone I must be one of the Mudcat law lords. Never been called that before.

I would suggest that the personal sniping stop. Take it to PMs if you must.

Thanks,

kat - Law Lordess:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 04:37 PM

You do appear a bit at sea about how the Mudcat operates, Victor...

"Guilty until proved innocent" - true enough that is an opinion.    I can think of a number of opinions which deserve to be set alongside it...

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 10:57 AM

Peace, Just heard on the radio this afternoon the head of the Portuguese police federation Carlos Anjos, (think that's the correct spelling) slammed Kate and Gerry McCann accusing them of hampering the investigation into their daughter's disappearance.

He said there was no point in scheduling other interrogations as Kate and Gerry have already said they will refuse to speak as they are entitled to by law.

He added, "Madeleine's parents attitude does not facilitate or help our investigation".

Doubt there will be a part two to this thread, the Mudcat law lords wouldn't permit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 10:37 AM

I think OJ killed his wife!
Does that answer your question Bruce :)
G

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Peace
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 10:07 AM

Are we gonna have Part II of this thread when the trial is about to take place, while it's going on or when it's over?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 09:48 AM

Sorry, wrong on every count. I know little about the cases you refer to other than the what I could read on the net, and it's already been pointed out that we shouldn't believe all we read here.

I repeat, I am allowed my opinion on the McCann case and you attempting to discredit me by trying to imply I am now referring to cases I NEVER made a reference to seems a bit sad really.

May I ask you, have you ever voiced your opinion on any thread on this site ?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 09:03 AM

Which appears to confirm what I wrote: "Victor's implication appears to be that Linda Chamberlain, Angela Cannings and the late Sally Clark should still be seen as likely killers of their children because they were not sufficiently openly emotional in the way they reacted in public."

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:38 AM

"Free George Davis"

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:07 AM

"There is a big difference in being falsely accused and an unsafe conviction."

Victor's implication appears to be is that Linda Chamberlain, Angela Cannings and the late Sally Clark should still be seen as likely killers of their children because they were not sufficiently openly motional in the way they reacted in public.

It is also true that there have been cases where people, who have later turned out to be indisputably guilty, have succeeded in coming across as totally distraught in a way that has satisfied people and the media, that they cannot be guilty.

The daft thing is that, whether guilty or not guilty the trauma, though different, is just as great. And some people react emotionally and others by being cold and detached. As way of sorting the sheep from the goats this is totally unreliable.

Unfortunately people who think thta it is reliable do get sit on juries, and this is a factor that leads juries to convict and acquit the wrong people.

I hope that Victor never gets to sit on any jury. That doesn't mean I think he's a bad person (or someone who shouldn't be a Mudcatter) - but I think he puts too much trust in his gut reactions as a basis for his opinion-forming mechanism on this kind of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 07:21 AM

We could probably get rid of child neglect completely if everybody suspected of it got equal support from politicians, celebrities and millionaires. A lot of people would benefit it there were constant distractions in their cases.

However, that doesn't help the children who are neglected and those are the people we should be concerned about.

There wouldn't be any speculation if it wasn't being rammed down our throats every minute of every day.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 07:05 AM

I just wonder what gives you the right ot sit in judgement on these people, and why you think it perfectly acceptable to broadcast your 'opinions' on a public forum. In my view it amounts to libel!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 06:50 AM

Yes your right, your still being an amateur psychologist.
As I said I was unaware of "trauma lasting five months". Amateurs tend to Google.

Did someone not advise earlier about believing everything we read on the net ?

I repeat, I am entitled to my opinions regarding this case.

I am still of the opinion the mother is responsible for causing accidental death, induced by sedation. And both parents are guilty of a cover up.

Talk until your blue in the face or run out of names to call me, but I remain of this opinion.

Please note I use the word "Opinion".

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 06:05 AM

Trauma I think you'll find the words 'weeks OR years' in the second paragraph.
Who's being an amateur psychologist now Victor?
So you are now aware of trauma lasting 5 months and more I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 05:42 AM

There is a big difference in being falsely accused and an unsafe conviction. Men have also been victims of false accusations of rape and been jailed.

I use the above examples to show you that nothing in life is as black and white as you tend to think it is.

Yes people do react differently to trauma, I am unaware of any cases of trauma lasting five months.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: mg
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 05:38 AM

It is totally irrelevant whether Portugal is kid friendly or not. Everyone knows the trouble that a pair of two year old twins can get into on a moment's notice. It's nuts to leave them anywhere. No one I can see is gloating but we should be on our high horses about this. You can be sympathetic to the parents of course, but at the same time send a strong message to everybody else out there to make arrangements for their children. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 09:59 PM

"the reactions of two people who just lost a beautiful child, extremely cold and lacking in emotion "

That was precisely the kind of thing that was said about Linda Chamberlain, and about other women who have been falsely accused, falsely convicted, and wrongly jailed for killing their children - and later exonerated. It's the kind of shallow accusation made of women who have been raped but who are disbelieved because they do not react in an openly emotional way.

People react to trauma in many ways, very often in ways that are seen as "cold and lacking in emotion".

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Victor in Mapperton
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 08:53 PM

Am I correct in assuming you meant post instead of thread McG ?

So why am I smug John ? Is it because I remained with my children every night of every family holiday and brought them with us each evening to restaurants ?

Or is it because I found the McCann's selfish, irresponsible attitude towards their own children every single night of their family holiday so repulsive ?

Or is it because I found the reactions of two people who just lost a beautiful child, extremely cold and lacking in emotion ?

I repeat, there are a number of questions regarding the movements of the McCann's the evening the child "illegality" went missing, still to receive credible answers.

If you find the above to be "smug" then yes I am.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 07:37 PM

the parents in my opinion are responsible for a lot more than neglect.

That was the kind of thing I was thinking of in my last thread. It's the kind of attitude that's been responsible for an awful lot of awful things being done - often by basically decent enough people.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 05:47 PM

Nobody has disagreed with the fact that it was wrong to leave the children. It is however very sick to apparently be gloating that the parents got what they deserved for doing so. 'Cos I may be wrong, and I'm not the only one either, but that's the way your smug posts come over Victor.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 05:38 PM

Portugal is very child friendly. It's not unusual to see children out with their family for a meal late into the evening and staff in restaurants welcome them.

Clearly the McCann's didn't want their kids ruining their evening so they left them at home ALONE.

eanjay, don't take the bait, I totally agree with everything you said.

I repeat, leaving three children alone is WRONG and ILLEGAL. I stand by what I have been saying since May, the parents in my opinion are responsible for a lot more than neglect.

Good to see Dave back on the thread, is this the same Dave who said in May he would not return to this thread as long as I posted on it ?????????

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 04:26 PM

Thanks McG, that's exactly what I meant.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 04:14 PM

That leap has been made on the thread, implicitly - and of course in many other places, implicitly and often explicitly on the internet and in the media.

The very fact that Portugal is a child-friendly place is one factor in explaining why parents might feel at ease dining out and popping back regularly to see the kids were all right. The truth is that is the kind of things otherwise loving and caring parents do do. That's not saying it's a good idea, but then all kinds of things loving and caring parents have done at various times haven't been a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 03:04 PM

Giok, I'm not willing to resort to childishness and I'm not your mate!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 03:01 PM

Oh I didn't do it, someone else did, I couldn't be that bothered mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 02:56 PM

Just trying to be allowed my opinion, Giok.

I haven't got the time or energy to count all your posts on this or any thread!