BS: Child neglect and the law

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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:41 PM

Agree, I didn't word it very well!

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 - 06:05 PM

The other two children were both 2 years old.

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 - 06:26 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:11 AM

Hi Dave, I did realise after I had posted and I am happy now. Have a good day. Jean

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 17 May 07 - 09:40 AM

Wolfgang:

I agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Betty
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:10 AM

I have to admit the jogging is very very disturbing

most mothers would be inconsolable and by now on heavy medication..

the more time that passes the stronger they seem to get...it should be the other way around?????

Do you think they have been told by police that they know she is alive???

How can parents even begin to function normally after such a tradgedy?

Everything this couple has done since DAY 1 has disturbed both my husband and myself. Just when you think you have seen it all, hold on to your hats, becuase as sure as day follows night, they will do something else which makes us "weird" normal parents out here put our head in our hands and just watch them in and UTTER sheer disbelief. I repaeat myself.... I have NEVER seen any parents of a missing child acting in the way they have done.. The lies, and all. I am fast becoming lost for words.
Re. them being told she is still alive.... I have said this before... it can be the ONLY explanation to the way this couple are behaving, but, if that is REALLY the case? Then why have they set up this bloody fund?????????????????


one of specifications of allocation is for the "..expenses and requirements of the McCann family"

and thats official!

"Team McCann" as it's now called (previously "team Madeleine") is to be mobilised not just for a spurious search campaign but also the parents' legal expenses.
The upcoming legal defence of the McCanns (re their neglect and endangerment of 3 babies )is to be financially linked with costs of residence and suchlike
The stomach churning horror of all this is just dawning on me.


How do you know the defence is linked in with general expenses? My stomach growling too...

Dave if your as uncomfortable with this thread as you say you are just go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:18 AM

Presumably the costs of an indefinite stay in Portugal are also coming out of the fund.

That is fine because a lot of people have been moved enough to want to contribute and it has been made clear where their money will go.

I won't be contributing.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Just curious.
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:17 AM

I'm not making any judgements here but I'd be interested to know(a) how many evenings had the children been left unattended at the resort prior to the night in question and (b)between what hours. Anyone know?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:31 AM

Daily Mail

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Just curious.
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:54 AM

Thanks, I'd seen that but it's not a full answer- how many nights is that, and what hours is what I'd like to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 May 07 - 12:08 PM

I'm not sure but somebody else may know.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Betty
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:09 PM

They remained with their children the first night they arrived.
After that the group including Mr.& Mrs. McCann were seen out every night without exception.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Just curious.
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:16 PM

OK- but when did they arrive there and what were their typical hours out? In all the hectares of newsprint and days of broadcasting hasn't this emerged?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:31 PM

GUEST,JC, you now have me wondering also but does it really matter?

They repeatedly left three children under the age of four alone for, by their own admission, up to a half hour at a time. Morning, noon or night, I think it is wrong. Maybe attitudes toward this are different on that side of the pond but I find it unconscionable. As I said earlier, this would never occur to me as being acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Just curious.
Date: 17 May 07 - 02:47 PM

Fair question KB and the answer must be no, it doesn't matter- but I'd still like to know nevertheless

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:15 PM

*sigh*

Is it me, or does this thread feel increasingly like a Daily Mail-style witch hunt?

These people have lost their little girl, for god's sake. Unless you've never, ever taken a somewhat stupid or irresponsible decision in the whole of your life, cut them a break and show a little compassion. Judging them, speculating over where the money is going, speculating over whether they're actually guilty themselves - it's nasty and ugly. And I'll bet the most sanctimonious of you wouldn't like a torch shone too deeply into your own lives for strangers to gloat over - we've all made decisions we're not proud of at one time or another. But not many of us will have to live with the consequences for the rest of our lives in quite the way that that child's parents will.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:28 PM

I am not on a witch hunt. In my first post to this thread I expressed my sympathy over their plight. I do feel badly for them. I am just saying that I would not leave such young children by themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:31 PM

Good for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 May 07 - 04:41 PM

But not many of us will have to live with the consequences for the rest of our lives in quite the way that that child's parents will.

If the "suspect" is in fact innocent then he is also going to have to live with this for the rest of his life.

It has affected a lot of people.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,patty o'dawes
Date: 17 May 07 - 07:10 PM

Both Murat and his Russian associate ( Kaplinka?) need the real culprit caught if they are to resume normal life. Yes, mud sticks and if they are innocent and the culprit isn't caught they will suffer a kind of hell. But nothing compared to that which the Mc Canns are suffering.

The whole story has been a media frenzy, and although the media help keep Madeleine in the publics thoughts, their presence and the tit bits of unsubstantiated 'fact' they throw around brings out the worst in some people.

The consequences of error can be so huge, that finger pointing becomes obscene and I think this is one of them times. It has divided us this side of the pond - the ones who wait for news and the ones who have their knitting ready for the public flogging.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Me
Date: 17 May 07 - 08:55 PM

These people make me sick. They have a tiny child missing due to their own neglect then expect us to pay for their 'EXPENSES' when they wouldn't even fork out for their nanny to go on holiday with them or at least hire a babysitter.

Their home is worth in excess of half a million pound and they take home over £200,000 a year. Surely, they could afford to pay a few more bar bills before calling for public funding!

I hope to God the child is found safe. However, the parenting skills of the Mcanns should be investigated heavily in order to ensure the future safety of all 3 children.

It would appear this sorry situation has been caused by their greed and now that greed for money has been exposed even further by them not wishing to spend a tiny proportion of their wealth in order to STICK AROUND WHILST OTHER PEOPLE ARE WORKING HARD TO FIND THEIR DAUGHTER.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 May 07 - 10:52 PM

Two words.

Susan Smith.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 18 May 07 - 03:11 AM

Christ almighty.

Loads of people who somehow want to feel involved in something that is patently none of their business and has nothing to do with them could see no other way of demonstrating their support than by chucking money at the case. It was not instigated by the McCanns. What that money will actually be used for is a matter of conjecture, by everyone. If these people "make you sick", don't donate to the fund. Stop reading the acres of newsprint. Just let this couple get on with looking for their daughter without being hung, drawn and quartered. This is trial by tabloid, and if there's anything that makes ME sick, it's the nauseating self-righteousness displayed here by people who are greedily feeding on media half-truths like salacious sharks.

If these issues concern you so very much, get down off your high horses and go and donate some time to a charity that looks after neglected children. Then at least you'll be doing something worthwhile, instead of spouting vitriol at two people who have just suffered the worst loss any parent can imagine.

SRS - Comparing these loving parents, who made one daft and irresponsible decision, and who will suffer for it for the rest of their lives, to a woman who willfully killed her children, is about the sickest thing I've heard in a long time. Well done.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 May 07 - 03:52 AM

Patty O'Dawes (Any relation to to Glazer family?) says it all far better that I have up to now.

The consequences of error can be so huge, that finger pointing becomes obscene

Is one of the best and most succinct phrases I have come across to summarise the situation. I will use it again if I may.

Cheers

Dave