UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Angelo222 on April 09, 2013, 10:30:49 AM
-
Can we have a look at what constitutes child neglect or abandonment since some members appear to believe the McCanns were guilty of the latter.
-
The McCanns left the children alone night after night. That's abandoning them right there. Look up the definition.
Then read this: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/homealone.cfm (https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/homealone.cfm)
-
This really infuriates me. How many times have we seen pathetic people crying on TV after being caught out posting abuse on the internet? The most recent example being some so called youth police commissioner. What a stupid and immature specimen! 8()(((@#
Does it infuriate you the way the Portuguese were portrayed in the UK press ?
Or is that excusable, merely because they were 'Sardine munchers' , that from the mirror ( ref: Tony Parsons ) ?
You have to admit that they weren't very good.
Yes the mirror headlines, the sun, etc., were appalling.
And we all know where they got their headlines from.
The supporters of the Mccanns. 8((()*/
-
This really infuriates me. How many times have we seen pathetic people crying on TV after being caught out posting abuse on the internet? The most recent example being some so called youth police commissioner. What a stupid and immature specimen! 8()(((@#
Does it infuriate you the way the Portuguese were portrayed in the UK press ?
Or is that excusable, merely because they were 'Sardine munchers' , that from the mirror ( ref: Tony Parsons ) ?
You have to admit that they weren't very good.
Yes the mirror headlines, the sun, etc., were appalling.
And we all know where they got their headlines from.
The supporters of the Mccanns. 8((()*/
You know which headlines I am talking about. You know. When you all thought The Press was wonderful.
-
C Edwards. Please stop posting untruths. The McCanns did NOT abandon their children. I have deleted your malicious posts.
Ah, now we're into mod censorship of posts that don't agree with their point of view! Debunker!
They McCanns left the children alone night after night. That's abandoning them right there. Look up the definition.
Then read this: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/homealone.cfm (https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/homealone.cfm)
That is a US site and does not mention abandoning which implies long term or permanent.
THe McCanns were considered by two jurisdictikns to have not broken any child protection laws.
NO one in their situation has ever been successfully prosecuted for neglect in the UK.
-
C Edwards. Please stop posting untruths. The McCanns did NOT abandon their children. I have deleted your malicious posts.
Ah, now we're into mod censorship of posts that don't agree with their point of view! Debunker!
They McCanns left the children alone night after night. That's abandoning them right there. Look up the definition.
Then read this: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/homealone.cfm (https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/homealone.cfm)
I don't know which dictionary you use C. Edwards but Ox dict defines the word abandon as to leave somebody, especially somebody you are responsible for, with no intention of returning.
Care to explain the relevance to the McCanns ?
Ps If Censorship requires the removal of erroneous/disingenuous material so be it!
-
@ John
It's interesting that your resistance to the McCann propaganda lasted no longer than it took for them to withdraw their attack dogs.
It is very, very revealing that your resistance to the truth is evident in your posting.
You seem to have missed the fact that what C.Edwards posted was completely untrue and backed up by no relevant links while what John posted was completely true and backed up by a very relevant link.
Can you explain why you attack the poster of the truth and ignore the poster of the untruths?
-
Debunker
Why do you insist on bringing material you find offensive from other forums to this one ?
What purpose does that serve except to infect this forum with the 'us and them' gang mentality
-
Debunker
Why do you insist on bringing material you find offensive from other forums to this one ?
What purpose does that serve except to infect this forum with the 'us and them' gang mentality
It is a reminder of why I am harder on pros than [ censored word]. Both groups are making silly claims above their knowledge and ability; only one side is [ censored word ] a private family.
-
Why is it "disgusting"? It's crass, but as there are already photoshops and attempted "humour" surrounding the poor Philpot children doing the rounds, this is hardly cutting edge satire now.
Of course if one were to peruse the pages of a pro forum, one would see no such photoshops regarding Tony Bennett and Amaral, would one? Stop being so precious about something that is of little consequence. It's schoolboy/student humour at worst and isn't going to make someone suddenly go, "oh my god, they're right, the McCanns killed her!" is it?
Besides, anyone leaving their children alone in a foreign country night after night certainly fits into the pigeonhole of a bad parent to me.
Oh dear! 8(8-))
-
Debunker
Why do you insist on bringing material you find offensive from other forums to this one ?
What purpose does that serve except to infect this forum with the 'us and them' gang mentality
It is a reminder of why I am harder on pros than [ censored word]. Both groups are making silly claims above their knowledge and ability; only one side is [ censored word ] a private family.
Why are you harder on Pros than [ censored word]? Or did you mean the other way round?
No, he meant it. He just expects better from us. I understand perfectly what he is talking about, but I am governed somewhat by emotion, which he never is. Except when it comes to his children, that is.
-
Imagine you've hired a babysitter and gone out for the evening. Your babysitter goes out just for half an hour. Your child is abducted while she is gone.
Who would you blame?
Would you be sympathetic with your babysitter?
Imagine that situation and then tell me the McCanns behaved responsibly
-
Imagine you've hired a babysitter and gone out for the evening. Your babysitter goes out just for half an hour. Your child is abducted while she is gone.
Who would you blame?
Would you be sympathetic with your babysitter?
Imagine that situation and then tell me the McCanns behaved responsibly
Irrelevant. The McCanns weren't paying a baby sitter.
-
Imagine you've hired a babysitter and gone out for the evening. Your babysitter goes out just for half an hour. Your child is abducted while she is gone.
Who would you blame?
Would you be sympathetic with your babysitter?
Imagine that situation and then tell me the McCanns behaved responsibly
Irrelevant. The McCanns weren't paying a baby sitter.
That Eleanor was just one of their failings.
-
Incidentally Deb I seem to recall you making the case that the McCanns WERE guilty of abandonment on Myths in your view, or have I misremembered?
NEver said that. I said there was no doubt they were left alone in an ill advised manner by time and distance, but that no crim O'Neal or otherwise actionable neglect occurred.
I decry their child care but defend their right under the law to do child care in a different manner than I did.
I was extremely interventionist when my kids were young but am much more liberal and risk taking now they are older.
-
Imagine you've hired a babysitter and gone out for the evening. Your babysitter goes out just for half an hour. Your child is abducted while she is gone.
Who would you blame?
Would you be sympathetic with your babysitter?
Imagine that situation and then tell me the McCanns behaved responsibly
Irrelevant. The McCanns weren't paying a baby sitter.
That Eleanor was just one of their failings.
IN your ever so humble (not) opinion it was a failing.
THe law gives them the right to act in that manner.
-
Imagine you've hired a babysitter and gone out for the evening. Your babysitter goes out just for half an hour. Your child is abducted while she is gone.
Who would you blame?
Would you be sympathetic with your babysitter?
Imagine that situation and then tell me the McCanns behaved responsibly
Hello and welcome Daisydoo. That is a very good point that you raise, and one that I have pondered over in the past. I think that the McCann's decision to leave the children unsupervised was wrong. However I don't really think they could have imagined anything like this happening. They were operating their own baby-listening service and sadly this was to have a terrible result. It was a stupid thing to do IMO but they must be feeling distraught and I won't use this as a stick to beat them with as it is not my place to do so.
-
Imagine you've hired a babysitter and gone out for the evening. Your babysitter goes out just for half an hour. Your child is abducted while she is gone.
Who would you blame?
Would you be sympathetic with your babysitter?
Imagine that situation and then tell me the McCanns behaved responsibly
Hello and welcome Daisydoo. That is a very good point that you raise, and one that I have ponde
red over in the past. I think that the McCann's decision to leave the children unsupervised was wrong. However I don't really think they could have imagined anything like this happening. They were operating their own baby-listening service and sadly this was to have a terrible result. It was a stupid thing to do IMO but they must be feeling distraught and I won't use this as a stick to beat them with as it is not my place to do so.
This all seems so simple to me.
We live in a free society, liberal and governed by rule of law.
The basic principle (unlike Roman/Napoleonic Law historically) is "that which has not been ruled illegal, is legal"
So people are free to act in any way that offends others which has not been deemed illegal.
What standing does any n......... here have in any discussion about their chilcare. Two legal systems have found it to be legal.
ANy moral person would shut up.
-
Imagine you've hired a babysitter and gone out for the evening. Your babysitter goes out just for half an hour. Your child is abducted while she is gone.
Who would you blame?
Would you be sympathetic with your babysitter?
Imagine that situation and then tell me the McCanns behaved responsibly
Irrelevant. The McCanns weren't paying a baby sitter.
That Eleanor was just one of their failings.
IN your ever so humble (not) opinion it was a failing.
THe law gives them the right to act in that manner.
As a consequence of their neglect Madeleine disappeared.
She and her siblings were left alone, with no back-up and no supervision,bar irregular 'checks'.
The regularity of which has never been verified.
However, the law does not give them the right to exhibit negligence.
For that Madeleine paid the price.
-
Imagine you've hired a babysitter and gone out for the evening. Your babysitter goes out just for half an hour. Your child is abducted while she is gone.
Who would you blame?
Would you be sympathetic with your babysitter?
Imagine that situation and then tell me the McCanns behaved responsibly
Irrelevant. The McCanns weren't paying a baby sitter.
That Eleanor was just one of their failings.
IN your ever so humble (not) opinion it was a failing.
THe law gives them the right to act in that manner.
As a consequence of their neglect Madeleine disappeared.
She and her siblings were left alone, with no back-up and no supervision,bar irregular 'checks'.
The regularity of which has never been verified.
However, the law does not give them the right to exhibit negligence.
For that Madeleine paid the price.
Neglect is a criminal offence for which they have been excused in two jurisdictions.
Certainly their behaviour led to the possibility of Madeleine disappearing but no criminal neglect occurred.
CAlling it neglect is just misuse of English by a sad [ censored word ].
-
Imagine you've hired a babysitter and gone out for the evening. Your babysitter goes out just for half an hour. Your child is abducted while she is gone.
Who would you blame?
Would you be sympathetic with your babysitter?
Imagine that situation and then tell me the McCanns behaved responsibly
Irrelevant. The McCanns weren't paying a baby sitter.
That Eleanor was just one of their failings.
I can't comment on their failings since I did precisely the same as they did on occasions. But then I allowed my children to run free all over the bloody place, and often heaven knows where. As long as they were home by dark. I even dumped them in some God forsaken Wood and left them Camping alone when they were well below the age of eleven. I just went there every morning to light their rotten camp fire because I was better at it than they were.
I doubt that I would be so cavalier with my grandchildren, but then they aren't actually my business.
-
No doubt Debunker would disagree with me. He would never do what I did. But it is only a difference of opinion. Nothing that I did was was illegal, or even neglect.
And funnily enough, we have never discussed it, even on the many occasions in Private, when we could have done.
He appears to believe that The McCanns should not have done what they did. And I don't feel the same way, because I did. Hypocrisy or what on my part if I critisised them? I cannot do this. So we have never actually talked about what he thinks of me.
But, you see, he and I have common ground. We both loath what has been done and is still being done to two people who have never been charged with anything.
-
No doubt Debunker would disagree with me. He would never do what I did. But it is only a difference of opinion. Nothing that I did was was illegal, or even neglect.
And funnily enough, we have never discussed it, even on the many occasions in Private, when we could have done.
He appears to believe that The McCanns should not have done what they did. And I don't feel the same way, because I did. Hypocrisy or what on my part if I critisised them? I cannot do this. So we have never actually talked about what he thinks of me.
But, you see, he and I have common ground. We both loath what has been done and is still being done to two people who have never been charged with anything.
I don't think what you did was wrong. It was a different decision to the one I would have taken. There is no judging of moral correctness, just a recognition of difference.
This is an adult, rational, non-judgemental approach.
Recommended as a learning curve for [ censored word ]s.
-
No doubt Debunker would disagree with me. He would never do what I did. But it is only a difference of opinion. Nothing that I did was was illegal, or even neglect.
And funnily enough, we have never discussed it, even on the many occasions in Private, when we could have done.
He appears to believe that The McCanns should not have done what they did. And I don't feel the same way, because I did. Hypocrisy or what on my part if I critisised them? I cannot do this. So we have never actually talked about what he thinks of me.
But, you see, he and I have common ground. We both loath what has been done and is still being done to two people who have never been charged with anything.
I don't think what you did was wrong. It was a different decision to the one I would have taken. There is no judging of moral correctness, just a recognition of difference.
This is an adult, rational, non-judgemental approach.
Recommended as a learning curve for [ censored word ]s.
No, Love, I never did think that you morally judged me. You have never given me that impression in all of the six years that I have known you. Not once, not ever. But I cannot condemn The McCanns for something that I did myself. And neither can I apologise for what I did.
I would most certainly never do it again, and I would give my children a terrible hard time if I thought that they might do it. But that is hindsight I suspect.
I do understand what you are saying. I always have. But sometimes it gets a bit convoluted.
Such a pity that you never posted on Sites on which I was a Moderator. I tolerated much, much worse than you have ever been. And the only thing that ever worried me was downright Libel.
-
8((()*/
Hi, Neely. I have missed you. You were fun in a sea of raging fights, which I have to say never bothered me at all. But I used to stay up half the night waiting for The Libel. But all gone before they ever saw the light of day. No one knows how many posts I deleted. I never acknowledged that they even happened. Just Whoosh, Clunk.
-
Imagine you've hired a babysitter and gone out for the evening. Your babysitter goes out just for half an hour. Your child is abducted while she is gone.
Who would you blame?
Would you be sympathetic with your babysitter?
Imagine that situation and then tell me the McCanns behaved responsibly
Hello and welcome Daisydoo. That is a very good point that you raise, and one that I have ponde
red over in the past. I think that the McCann's decision to leave the children unsupervised was wrong. However I don't really think they could have imagined anything like this happening. They were operating their own baby-listening service and sadly this was to have a terrible result. It was a stupid thing to do IMO but they must be feeling distraught and I won't use this as a stick to beat them with as it is not my place to do so.
This all seems so simple to me.
We live in a free society, liberal and governed by rule of law.
The basic principle (unlike Roman/Napoleonic Law historically) is "that which has not been ruled illegal, is legal"
So people are free to act in any way that offends others which has not been deemed illegal.
What standing does any n......... here have in any discussion about their chilcare. Two legal systems have found it to be legal.
ANy moral person would shut up.
I'm confused ... what are we discussing here, legal obligations, or moral obligations ? .. you have brought both into the arguement without making the clear distinction between the two
-
As a consequence of the criminal actions of a stranger Madeleine disappeared. That is the opinion of Scotland Yard and one I happen to share.
Not quite.
Redwood in the interview admitted both possibilities, she might be alive or dead. He hoped to find her alive.
However, the team includes members of the squad who helped in the conviction of Barry George, in the Dando case. They got that wrong.
-
Imagine you've hired a babysitter and gone out for the evening. Your babysitter goes out just for half an hour. Your child is abducted while she is gone.
Who would you blame?
Would you be sympathetic with your babysitter?
Imagine that situation and then tell me the McCanns behaved responsibly
Irrelevant. The McCanns weren't paying a baby sitter.
That Eleanor was just one of their failings.
IN your ever so humble (not) opinion it was a failing.
THe law gives them the right to act in that manner.
As a consequence of their neglect Madeleine disappeared.
She and her siblings were left alone, with no back-up and no supervision,bar irregular 'checks'.
The regularity of which has never been verified.
However, the law does not give them the right to exhibit negligence.
For that Madeleine paid the price.
Neglect is a criminal offence for which they have been excused in two jurisdictions.
Certainly their behaviour led to the possibility of Madeleine disappearing but no criminal neglect occurred.
CAlling it neglect is just misuse of English by a sad [ censored word ].
An only too predictable response in the use of '[ censored word ]'.
Having seen examples of your 'work' elsewhere, that's par for the course though.
Stop pretending to be neutral, you are anything but that.
The Mccanns neglected their children as other members of the group.
They had no excuse and should have known better. Placing socializing over their children's safety in an unknown country is and was inexcusable. I'm not even counting the possibility of the other children having accidents. To leave children without due care is not exactly in the N.S.P.C.C. 'guidelines' for child care. Infrequent 'visits' were insufficient as proved the case, and as they latterly claimed it was an unlocked apartment, after first claiming it was locked.
As I said, inexcusable.
.
-
Neglect is a criminal offence in Portugal and the UK. To accuse them of neglect is to accuse them of a crim O'Neal offence and as neither system proceeded a faintest the, that is an error and that makes your statement defamatory and potentially harassing.
The FACTS are:
The McCanns acted in a particular manner regarding childcare.
That was a decision within the law and hence not criminal
Neither you nor I believe that they acted in a manner that suits our moralities.
What we think has no value in deciding anything about the case.
This is the essence of common law- what is not specifically illegal, is legal.
-
For reference purposes................
'The law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone. However, it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk.'
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advice/for-parents-and-carers/parenting-advice/home-alone/home-alone_wda90761.html
-
As a consequence of the criminal actions of a stranger Madeleine disappeared. That is the opinion of Scotland Yard and one I happen to share.
Not quite.
Redwood in the interview admitted both possibilities, she might be alive or dead. He hoped to find her alive.
However, the team includes members of the squad who helped in the conviction of Barry George, in the Dando case. They got that wrong.
Not Quite to use your own turn of phrase Stephen.
George had his conviction overturned but has not been declared innocent since the courts have refused to pay him compensation. In any event how would you know who currently constitutes the 'team' unless you work there too?
It was big of Redwood to declare she was alive or dead. Is there an alternative?
-
For reference purposes................
'The law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone. However, it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk.'
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advice/for-parents-and-carers/parenting-advice/home-alone/home-alone_wda90761.html
Exactly. As they were not prosecuted, they did not neglect.
You are confusing the law with your prejudices.
-
As a consequence of the criminal actions of a stranger Madeleine disappeared. That is the opinion of Scotland Yard and one I happen to share.
Not quite.
Redwood in the interview admitted both possibilities, she might be alive or dead. He hoped to find her alive.
However, the team includes members of the squad who helped in the conviction of Barry George, in the Dando case. They got that wrong.
Not Quite to use your own turn of phrase Stephen.
George had his conviction overturned but has not been declared innocent since the courts have refused to pay him compensation. In any event how would you know who currently constitutes the 'team' unless you work there too?
It was big of Redwood to declare she was alive or dead. Is there an alternative?
I suggest you research.
Named members of the team were quoted in the press.
As to George, regardless of his failure to achieve compensation, wasn't the conviction overturned ?
-
And there is the FACT that the law in Portugal only crim inclines neglect with intention to harm, rather than as with the UK law, neglect with no consideration of the consequences.
-
And there is the FACT that the law in Portugal only crim inclines neglect with intention to harm, rather than as with the UK law, neglect with no consideration of the consequences.
i.e. in Portugal they got away with neglect.
If it had happened in the UK,
NO.
-
As a consequence of the criminal actions of a stranger Madeleine disappeared. That is the opinion of Scotland Yard and one I happen to share.
Not quite.
Redwood in the interview admitted both possibilities, she might be alive or dead. He hoped to find her alive.
However, the team includes members of the squad who helped in the conviction of Barry George, in the Dando case. They got that wrong.
Not Quite to use your own turn of phrase Stephen.
George had his conviction overturned but has not been declared innocent since the courts have refused to pay him compensation. In any event how would you know who currently constitutes the 'team' unless you work there too?
It was big of Redwood to declare she was alive or dead. Is there an alternative?
I suggest you research.
Named members of the team were quoted in the press.
As to George, regardless of his failure to achieve compensation, wasn't the conviction overturned ?
The legal position is that he is now presumed innocent as he has not been convicted.
He has been denied compensation on the specious grounds that even without the convicting evidence that was called into doubt, another jury could have convicted him.
I live in hope that this mean decision will be overturned.
-
I suggest you research.
Named members of the team were quoted in the press.
As to George, regardless of his failure to achieve compensation, wasn't the conviction overturned ?
So we are using the Press now as a source of Met staffing?
Maybe it is you who should do some research. George was released since the court of appeal held that his conviction was unsafe. He was not held to be technically innocent. There is a big difference in legal terms thus why the refusal to compensate him and Sion Jenkins to name but two such cases.
-
And there is the FACT that the law in Portugal only crim inclines neglect with intention to harm, rather than as with the UK law, neglect with no consideration of the consequences.
i.e. in Portugal they got away with neglect.
If it had happened in the UK,
NO.
NO. You are wrong in both cases.
It is not illegal in Portugal and therefore the McCanns did not neglect in Portugal. It just so happens that you (with no standing in the case) happen to disagree with the standard of their childcare. So do I, but that is of no importance.
NO similar case has ever been successfully prosecuted in the UK. This indicates that it was not an offence if it had happened in the UK.
-
I suggest you research.
Named members of the team were quoted in the press.
As to George, regardless of his failure to achieve compensation, wasn't the conviction overturned ?
So we are using the Press now as a source of Met staffing?
Maybe it is you who should do some research. George was released since the court of appeal held that his conviction was unsafe. He
was not held to be technically innocent. There is a big difference in legal terms thus why the refusal to compensate him and Sion Jenkins to name but two such cases.
Sorry but as my post above, he is innocent in law, at least presumptively. He is innocent but not eligible for compensation.
The usual case where this happens is where someone did not commit a crime but had acted recklessly to call suspicion on themselves. This is what happened in this case.
-
I don't agree debunker. You are applying George's right under the Law to be assumed innocent in the absence of a conviction. This is not the same as being declared innocent by the High Court. The Court has made its views very clear in that there is an insufficiency of evidence to prove guilt or innocence. The Law as it stands does not permit compensation to be paid in such cases.
-
I don't agree debunker. You are applying George's right under the Law to be assumed innocent in the absence of a conviction. This is not the same as being declared innocent by the High Court. The Court has made its views very clear in that there is an insufficiency of evidence to prove guilt or innocence. The Law as it stands does not permit compensation to be paid in such cases.
When has an English appeal court ever declared anyone innocent rather than not guilty? They quash convictions and then decide whether there is an argument for a retrial.
-
I don't agree debunker. You are applying George's right under the Law to be assumed innocent in the absence of a conviction. This is not the same as being declared innocent by the High Court. The Court has made its views very clear in that there is an insufficiency of evidence to prove guilt or innocence. The Law as it stands does not permit compensation to be paid in such cases.
When has an English appeal court ever declared anyone innocent rather than not guilty? They quash convictions and then decide whether there is an argument for a retrial.
Read the judgment. A judge can make any ruling he so desires but in the George case it was held that the conviction was unsafe as against being incompetent. Big difference!!!
-
I don't agree debunker. You are applying George's right under the Law to be assumed innocent in the absence of a conviction. This is not the same as being declared innocent by the High Court. The Court has made its views very clear in that there is an insufficiency of evidence to prove guilt or innocence. The Law as it stands does not permit compensation to be paid in such cases.
When has an English appeal court ever declared anyone innocent rather than not guilty? They quash convictions and then decide whether there is an argument for a retrial.
Read the judgment. A judge can make any ruling he so desires but in the George case it was held that the conviction was unsafe as against being incompetent. Big difference!!!
Has an appeal court judgement ever found other than that the case was unsound. Iwould be pleased, and surprised, if you could produce a judgement of innocence rather than one of 'unsound". It is a principle of English Law that the Jury is the finder of fact whereas an appeal court reviews procedure.
-
Re the Barry George finding, this was not a criminal appeal, but a administrative law finding about whether he was due compensation. It found against him because as a matter of administrative law the secretary of state could set conditions for paying compensation and that requiring proof of innocence beyond reasonable doubt was a fair standard.
SO, under criminal law George is Not Guilty and is an innocent man. But because he cannot prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt, the secretary of state cannot be found to have applied the law on compensation unreasonably.
THere are very few cases (possibly none) where a court of appeal in a criminal appeal has found someone innocent rather than Not Guilty.
-
And there is the FACT that the law in Portugal only crim inclines neglect with intention to harm, rather than as with the UK law, neglect with no consideration of the consequences.
i.e. in Portugal they got away with neglect.
If it had happened in the UK,
NO.
NO. You are wrong in both cases.
It is not illegal in Portugal and therefore the McCanns did not neglect in Portugal. It just so happens that you (with no standing in the case) happen to disagree with the standard of their childcare. So do I, but that is of no importance.
NO similar case has ever been successfully prosecuted in the UK. This indicates that it was not an offence if it had happened in the UK.
It is illegal to leave a child unattended in Portugal, especially if it is a small child/children, it corresponds to a crime of negligence and exposition to danger by artº 136 of the Penal Code whose penalty is a 5 to 10 years prison sentence.
-
And there is the FACT that the law in Portugal only crim inclines neglect with intention to harm, rather than as with the UK law, neglect with no consideration of the consequences.
i.e. in Portugal they got away with neglect.
If it had happened in the UK,
NO.
NO. You are wrong in both cases.
It is not illegal in Portugal and therefore the McCanns did not neglect in Portugal. It just so happens that you (with no standing in the case) happen to disagree with the standard of their childcare. So do I, but that is of no importance.
NO similar case has ever been successfully prosecuted in the UK. This indicates that it was not an offence if it had happened in the UK.
It is illegal to leave a child unattended in Portugal, especially if it is a small child/children, it corresponds to a crime of negligence and exposition to danger by artº 136 of the Penal Code whose penalty is a 5 to 10 years prison sentence.
Typical [ censored word ] and misquoting.
Portuguese law requires intent to harm which the Prosecutor found not possible to prove in this case because of the regular checks.
-
If the children had been abandoned with intent to suffer harm the penalty would be manslaughter to homicide (10 to 25 years prison).
I won't discuss the McCann here because it seems that the Adm. and the Mods do not like my views. I'll stick to the facts.
-
Ah you beat me to it luz....[about it being ab offence]
not a very nice thing to imply that in Portugal it is ok to leave toddlers.....
same as when k mcc said it was a British thing ...[leaving children with just a check whenever]
i wounder what the thought would have been if there had been a fire smoldering for 15/20 min's turning into an inferno..
would it have been the fires fault ...
the valuables were in a safe ...a safe place ......maddie +twins wasn't
when you leave children unprotected anything can happen...the parents failed them ...it should not be treat as a natural thing because it is not.
-
I'm at fault because I had promised to the Adm to stay away for a week - if they want to punish me on this I'll just take it and disappear.
However I can't as a portuguese see the laws of my country be obliviated/deformed. If they were not applied in this case it doesn't mean that they do not exist.
-
If the children had been abandoned with intent to suffer harm the penalty would be manslaughter to homicide (10 to 25 years prison).
I won't discuss the McCann here because it seems that the Adm. and the Mods do not like my views. I'll stick to the facts.
Please quote the entire wording of the law
-
I'm at fault because I had promised to the Adm to stay away for a week - if they want to punish me on this I'll just take it and disappear.
However I can't as a portuguese see the laws of my country be obliviated/deformed. If they were not applied in this case it doesn't mean that they do not exist.
Please quote the law before you disappear.
THe prosecutor found that the behaviour of the McCanns was not criminal- no evidence of commission of a crime.
-
Mr. Debunker you are a google savy, just google it : abandono de menores; negligência, etc
...you don't expect me to do the work for you, do you?
-
I don't agree debunker. You are applying George's right under the Law to be assumed innocent in the absence of a conviction. This is not the same as being declared innocent by the High Court. The Court has made its views very clear in that there is an insufficiency of evidence to prove guilt or innocence. The Law as it stands does not permit compensation to be paid in such cases.
When has an English appeal court ever declared anyone innocent rather than not guilty? They quash convictions and then decide whether there is an argument for a retrial.
Read the judgment. A judge can make any ruling he so desires but in the George case it was held that the conviction was unsafe as against being incompetent. Big difference!!!
Has an appeal court judgement ever found other than that the case was unsound. Iwould be pleased, and surprised, if you could produce a judgement of innocence rather than one of 'unsound". It is a principle of English Law that the Jury is the finder of fact whereas an appeal court reviews procedure.
BUmp for a cite.
-
I suggest you research.
Named members of the team were quoted in the press.
As to George, regardless of his failure to achieve compensation, wasn't the conviction overturned ?
So we are using the Press now as a source of Met staffing?
Maybe it is you who should do some research. George was released since the court of appeal held that his conviction was unsafe. He was not held to be technically innocent. There is a big difference in legal terms thus why the refusal to compensate him and Sion Jenkins to name but two such cases.
No a list of some of the officers involved was given in the press ?
After all you trust the press, don't you ?
As to the second matter, I stand corrected. The police thought they had the right man, but it was the forensic evidence, no irony of course, which meant the verdict unsafe.
As to a retrial ???
-
The General Attorney couldn't do anything about the neglect because he had only six months to act upon it. They all suspected that a bigger crime had been committed and waited too long in the attempt to find out what and who. His Final Report was such a messy "business" that even his closest judges friends criticized him about it.
-
For reference purposes................
'The law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone. However, it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk.'
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advice/for-parents-and-carers/parenting-advice/home-alone/home-alone_wda90761.html
Exactly. As they were not prosecuted, they did not neglect.
You are confusing the law with your prejudices.
Not at all. I recommend you read through the R.S.P.C.A pages thoroughly.
-
As a consequence of the criminal actions of a stranger Madeleine disappeared. That is the opinion of Scotland Yard and one I happen to share.
Not quite.
Redwood in the interview admitted both possibilities, she might be alive or dead. He hoped to find her alive.
However, the team includes members of the squad who helped in the conviction of Barry George, in the Dando case. They got that wrong.
Not Quite to use your own turn of phrase Stephen.
George had his conviction overturned but has not been declared innocent since the courts have refused to pay him compensation. In any event how would you know who currently constitutes the 'team' unless you work there too?
It was big of Redwood to declare she was alive or dead. Is there an alternative?
Not if he gives preference to one, when he doesn't know either way.
Meanwhile the SY review was not entirely that.
All the 'reasonable' options should have been investigated, not just a no proof abduction thesis.
-
And there is the FACT that the law in Portugal only crim inclines neglect with intention to harm, rather than as with the UK law, neglect with no consideration of the consequences.
i.e. in Portugal they got away with neglect.
If it had happened in the UK,
NO.
NO. You are wrong in both cases.
It is not illegal in Portugal and therefore the McCanns did not neglect in Portugal. It just so happens that you (with no standing in the case) happen to disagree with the standard of their childcare. So do I, but that is of no importance.
NO similar case has ever been successfully prosecuted in the UK. This indicates that it was not an offence if it had happened in the UK.
It is illegal to leave a child unattended in Portugal, especially if it is a small child/children, it corresponds to a crime of negligence and exposition to danger by artº 136 of the Penal Code whose penalty is a 5 to 10 years prison sentence.
Thank you Luz for that information.
-
Depends on your definition of unattended? Is putting a child to bed upstairs while you are out in the garden enjoying a barbecue unattended?
NB This discussion has been renamed since most of the posts relate to neglect. TY
-
Depends on your definition of unattended? Is putting a child to bed upstairs while you are out in the garden enjoying a barbecue unattended?
Not really.
The weren't in a garden.
The children were for the vast majority of the time unattended, by themselves.
If you are in any doubt as to that, contact the social services in the UK, the NSPCC, and the relevant authorities in Portugal.
As to why the McCanns weren't charged with neglect, now that is a good question.
To that though there is one obvious answer, and not because they were innocent of neglect and reckless endangerment of their children.
-
I apologize but I take back the quote of artº 136º of the Penal Code, I can't confirm the actual article, that I did by memory, because I do not have the revised books here with me. However the principle and the contents stay.
-
I apologize but I take back the quote of artº 136º of the Penal Code, I can't confirm the actual article, that I did by memory, because I do not have the revised books here with me. However the principle and the contents stay.
SO YOU WERE IN ERROR. Please admit that.
Criminal neglect in Portugal requires intent.
Thank you.
-
It is illegal to leave a child unattended in Portugal, especially if it is a small child/children, it corresponds to a crime of negligence and exposition to danger by artº 136 of the Penal Code whose penalty is a 5 to 10 years prison sentence.
Thank you Luz for that information.
I apologize but I take back the quote of artº 136º of the Penal Code, I can't confirm the nº of the actual article, that I did by memory, because I do not have the revised books here with me. However the principle and the contents stay.
-
Depends on your definition of unattended? Is putting a child to bed upstairs while you are out in the garden enjoying a barbecue unattended?
Not really.
The weren't in a garden.
The children were for the vast majority of the time unattended, by themselves.
If you are in any doubt as to that, contact the social services in the UK, the NSPCC, and the relevant authorities in Portugal.
As to why the McCanns weren't charged with neglect, now that is a good question.
To that though there is one obvious answer, and not because they were innocent of neglect and reckless endangerment of their children.
They were innocent of neglect in Portugal because the law there on neglect requires proof of intent.
See Luz's retraction above.
-
Depends on your definition of unattended? Is putting a child to bed upstairs while you are out in the garden enjoying a barbecue unattended?
Not really.
The weren't in a garden.
The children were for the vast majority of the time unattended, by themselves.
If you are in any doubt as to that, contact the social services in the UK, the NSPCC, and the relevant authorities in Portugal.
As to why the McCanns weren't charged with neglect, now that is a good question.
To that though there is one obvious answer, and not because they were innocent of neglect and reckless endangerment of their children.
@)(++(* You are splitting hairs now stephen. There is no difference whatsoever between what I just suggested and them going for a meal literally seconds away. I will agree though that such a sitution is far from ideal. They should have taken a good child monitor with them if they were intending leaving the children totally alone for longish periods.
As far as neglect and reckless endangerment is concerned I think you already have the answer.
-
@ John
What if Madeleine, hearing one of the twins wake up, tried to light the cooker to warm a bottle, as mummy does and as a result her nightclothes caught fire ? By the time the McCanns would even been aware of it would be when the flames had spread to the front of the apartment and they could see them from the tapas, in all likelihood too late to save the children. Would that be reckless abandonment. 30 minutes is ample time for this to happen and 50 metres 'as the crow flies' is far enough away to be unable to respond quickly enough.
-
@ John
What if Madeleine, hearing one of the twins wake up, tried to light the cooker to warm a bottle, as mummy does and as a result her nightclothes caught fire ? By the time the McCanns would even been aware of it would be when the flames had spread to the front of the apartment and they could see them from the tapas, in all likelihood too late to save the children. Would that be reckless abandonment. 30 minutes is ample time for this to happen and 50 metres 'as the crow flies' is far enough away to be unable to respond quickly enough.
It may have been ill advised behaviour, but it is not criminal behaviour. Using words like neglect and abandonment imply criminability.
The7 fact that youhave concerns about there child care is immaterial. According to Portugueselaw they were not guilty of neglect or abandonment.
-
Did you know that someone did have a baby monitor with them at the table that night according to one of the waiters? He described it as a 'walkie-talkie'.
JERONIMO TOMAS RODRIGUES SALCEDAS
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm
-
@ John
What if Madeleine, hearing one of the twins wake up, tried to light the cooker to warm a bottle, as mummy does and as a result her nightclothes caught fire ? By the time the McCanns would even been aware of it would be when the flames had spread to the front of the apartment and they could see them from the tapas, in all likelihood too late to save the children. Would that be reckless abandonment. 30 minutes is ample time for this to happen and 50 metres 'as the crow flies' is far enough away to be unable to respond quickly enough.
It may have been ill advised behaviour, but it is not criminal behaviour. Using words like neglect and abandonment imply criminability.
The7 fact that youhave concerns about there child care is immaterial. According to Portugueselaw they were not guilty of neglect or abandonment.
They were guilty of criminal negligence. Why do you think that Mrs Philomena had to create that lie about the police proposing them a bargain -which was impossible? It was because their lawyer alerted them to the possibility that they could go to prison for negligence.
-
If it wasn't for the Lisbon Treaty and the pressure from other countries to have the UK's PM, Gordon Brown signing that blasted treaty, the Mccs would be in jail still.
-
@ John
What if Madeleine, hearing one of the twins wake up, tried to light the cooker to warm a bottle, as mummy does and as a result her nightclothes caught fire ? By the time the McCanns would even been aware of it would be when the flames had spread to the front of the apartment and they could see them from the tapas, in all likelihood too late to save the children. Would that be reckless abandonment. 30 minutes is ample time for this to happen and 50 metres 'as the crow flies' is far enough away to be unable to respond quickly enough.
It may have been ill advised behaviour, but it is not criminal behaviour. Using words like neglect and abandonment imply criminability.
The7 fact that youhave concerns about there child care is immaterial. According to Portugueselaw they were not guilty of neglect or abandonment.
They were guilty of criminal negligence. Why do you think that Mrs Philomena had to create that lie about the police proposing them a bargain -which was impossible? It was because their lawyer alerted them to the possibility that they could go to prison for negligence.
For your sentence to be correct it would be necessary for a competent court to have found so. No such decision has been made, hence they were not criminally neglectful.
-
Depends on your definition of unattended? Is putting a child to bed upstairs while you are out in the garden enjoying a barbecue unattended?
Not really.
The weren't in a garden.
The children were for the vast majority of the time unattended, by themselves.
If you are in any doubt as to that, contact the social services in the UK, the NSPCC, and the relevant authorities in Portugal.
As to why the McCanns weren't charged with neglect, now that is a good question.
To that though there is one obvious answer, and not because they were innocent of neglect and reckless endangerment of their children.
They were innocent of neglect in Portugal because the law there on neglect requires proof of intent.
See Luz's retraction above.
Intent ??
They DELIBERATELY went out to the tapas bar, for successive nights, leaving the children unguarded.
It wasn't in the back garden and Madeleine disappeared.
No ifs or buts on that one.
-
Depends on your definition of unattended? Is putting a child to bed upstairs while you are out in the garden enjoying a barbecue unattended?
Not really.
The weren't in a garden.
The children were for the vast majority of the time unattended, by themselves.
If you are in any doubt as to that, contact the social services in the UK, the NSPCC, and the relevant authorities in Portugal.
As to why the McCanns weren't charged with neglect, now that is a good question.
To that though there is one obvious answer, and not because they were innocent of neglect and reckless endangerment of their children.
They were innocent of neglect in Portugal because the law there on neglect requires proof of intent.
See Luz's retraction above.
Intent ??
They DELIBERATELY went out to the tapas bar, for successive nights, leaving the children unguarded.
It wasn't in the back garden and Madeleine disappeared.
No ifs or buts on that one.
Intent in this case means intent to expose them to danger, not intent to leave them. The Prosecutor was quite clear that they had not crossed the line of criminal neglect.
-
Depends on your definition of unattended? Is putting a child to bed upstairs while you are out in the garden enjoying a barbecue unattended?
Not really.
The weren't in a garden.
The children were for the vast majority of the time unattended, by themselves.
If you are in any doubt as to that, contact the social services in the UK, the NSPCC, and the relevant authorities in Portugal.
As to why the McCanns weren't charged with neglect, now that is a good question.
To that though there is one obvious answer, and not because they were innocent of neglect and reckless endangerment of their children.
@)(++(* You are splitting hairs now stephen. There is no difference whatsoever between what I just suggested and them going for a meal literally seconds away. I will agree though that such a sitution is far from ideal. They should have taken a good child monitor with them if they were intending leaving the children totally alone for longish periods.
As far as neglect and reckless endangerment is concerned I think you already have the answer.
So what you're saying, is that you would leave young children by themselves in an unlocked/locked residence whilst drinking ?
Unbelievable.
-
Depends on your definition of unattended? Is putting a child to bed upstairs while you are out in the garden enjoying a barbecue unattended?
Not really.
The weren't in a garden.
The children were for the vast majority of the time unattended, by themselves.
If you are in any doubt as to that, contact the social services in the UK, the NSPCC, and the relevant authorities in Portugal.
As to why the McCanns weren't charged with neglect, now that is a good question.
To that though there is one obvious answer, and not because they were innocent of neglect and reckless endangerment of their children.
@)(++(* You are splitting hairs now stephen. There is no difference whatsoever between what I just suggested and them going for a meal literally seconds away. I will agree though that such a sitution is far from ideal. They should have taken a good child monitor with them if they were intending leaving the children totally alone for longish periods.
As far as neglect and reckless endangerment is concerned I think you already have the answer.
So what you're saying, is that you would leave young children by themselves in an unlocked/locked residence whilst drinking ?
Unbelievable.
You are confrming by your posts that you are either stupid or disruptive.
-
Leaving small children alone in a home without the supervision of an adult (it doesn't matter for how long) is a crime according to Portuguese Law.
If the children were under 6, as these were and if anything grave happened to any of them, as it happened, the parents would be judged for grave negligence and a minimum of 10 years.
The behaviour was criminal under Portuguese Law, even if they got away with it.
As I said before, the GA was expecting to get them for a major crime and didn't act within the negligence period so they had a free ride for a big crime under Portuguese Law.
The fact that they weren't convicted doesn't make them less responsible. It's like saying, ok you killed that person but you weren't caught, so you are innocent.
-
Leaving small children alone in a home without the supervision of an adult (it doesn't matter for how long) is a crime according to Portuguese Law.
If the children were under 6, as these were and if anything grave happened to any of them, as it happened, the parents would be judged for grave negligence and a minimum of 10 years.
The behaviour was criminal under Portuguese Law, even if they got away with it.
As I said before, the GA was expecting to get them for a major crime and didn't act within the negligence period so they had a free ride for a big crime under Portuguese Law.
The fact that they weren't convicted doesn't make them less responsible. It's like saying, ok you killed that person but you weren't caught, so you are innocent.
I have repeatedly asked you to quote this law in full which IIRC required intent to harm for neglect to have occurred.
You are a good example of the difference between Common Law Jurisdictoons and those based on the Napoleonic Code.
In Common Law jurisdictions, people are not criminals until they are proved so by a court. In your world people can be seen as criminals even when they have not been convicted. Your Law is edging towards this with pressure from the ECHR and pressure from other countries.
-
Depends on your definition of unattended? Is putting a child to bed upstairs while you are out in the garden enjoying a barbecue unattended?
Not really.
The weren't in a garden.
The children were for the vast majority of the time unattended, by themselves.
If you are in any doubt as to that, contact the social services in the UK, the NSPCC, and the relevant authorities in Portugal.
As to why the McCanns weren't charged with neglect, now that is a good question.
To that though there is one obvious answer, and not because they were innocent of neglect and reckless endangerment of their children.
@)(++(* You are splitting hairs now stephen. There is no difference whatsoever between what I just suggested and them going for a meal literally seconds away. I will agree though that such a sitution is far from ideal. They should have taken a good child monitor with them if they were intending leaving the children totally alone for longish periods.
As far as neglect and reckless endangerment is concerned I think you already have the answer.
So what you're saying, is that you would leave young children by themselves in an unlocked/locked residence whilst drinking ?
Unbelievable.
You are confrming by your posts that you are either stupid or disruptive.
Neither.
merely the truth.
-
Depends on your definition of unattended? Is putting a child to bed upstairs while you are out in the garden enjoying a barbecue unattended?
Not really.
The weren't in a garden.
The children were for the vast majority of the time unattended, by themselves.
If you are in any doubt as to that, contact the social services in the UK, the NSPCC, and the relevant authorities in Portugal.
As to why the McCanns weren't charged with neglect, now that is a good question.
To that though there is one obvious answer, and not because they were innocent of neglect and reckless endangerment of their children.
@)(++(* You are splitting hairs now stephen. There is no difference whatsoever between what I just suggested and them going for a meal literally seconds away. I will agree though that such a sitution is far from ideal. They should have taken a good child monitor with them if they were intending leaving the children totally alone for longish periods.
As far as neglect and reckless endangerment is concerned I think you already have the answer.
So what you're saying, is that you would leave young children by themselves in an unlocked/locked residence whilst drinking ?
Unbelievable.
You are confrming by your posts that you are either stupid or disruptive.
Neither.
merely the truth.
The truth is undeniable.
The McCanns have been neither charged nor questioned about any child neglect or abandonment. This means that they are innocent of these acts in the eyes of the law.
Your truth is a lie.
Situation normal then.
-
Depends on your definition of unattended? Is putting a child to bed upstairs while you are out in the garden enjoying a barbecue unattended?
Not really.
The weren't in a garden.
The children were for the vast majority of the time unattended, by themselves.
If you are in any doubt as to that, contact the social services in the UK, the NSPCC, and the relevant authorities in Portugal.
As to why the McCanns weren't charged with neglect, now that is a good question.
To that though there is one obvious answer, and not because they were innocent of neglect and reckless endangerment of their children.
@)(++(* You are splitting hairs now stephen. There is no difference whatsoever between what I just suggested and them going for a meal literally seconds away. I will agree though that such a sitution is far from ideal. They should have taken a good child monitor with them if they were intending leaving the children totally alone for longish periods.
As far as neglect and reckless endangerment is concerned I think you already have the answer.
So what you're saying, is that you would leave young children by themselves in an unlocked/locked residence whilst drinking ?
Unbelievable.
You are confrming by your posts that you are either stupid or disruptive.
Neither.
merely the truth.
The truth is undeniable.
The McCanns have been neither charged nor questioned about any child neglect or abandonment. This means that they are innocent of these acts in the eyes of the law.
Your truth is a lie.
Situation normal then.
Madeleine is missing.
FACT.
Why ?
The Mccanns placed their wining and dining, over their children's safety.
Good question.
You can pretend all you want, debunker, but you support the parents, not Madeleine.
-
Depends on your definition of unattended? Is putting a child to bed upstairs while you are out in the garden enjoying a barbecue unattended?
Not really.
The weren't in a garden.
The children were for the vast majority of the time unattended, by themselves.
If you are in any doubt as to that, contact the social services in the UK, the NSPCC, and the relevant authorities in Portugal.
As to why the McCanns weren't charged with neglect, now that is a good question.
To that though there is one obvious answer, and not because they were innocent of neglect and reckless endangerment of their children.
@)(++(* You are splitting hairs now stephen. There is no difference whatsoever between what I just suggested and them going for a meal literally seconds away. I will agree though that such a sitution is far from ideal. They should have taken a good child monitor with them if they were intending leaving the children totally alone for longish periods.
As far as neglect and reckless endangerment is concerned I think you already have the answer.
So what you're saying, is that you would leave young children by themselves in an unlocked/locked residence whilst drinking ?
Unbelievable.
You are confrming by your posts that you are either stupid or disruptive.
Neither.
merely the truth.
The truth is undeniable.
The McCanns have been neither charged nor questioned about any child neglect or abandonment. This means that they are innocent of these acts in the eyes of the law.
Your truth is a lie.
Situation normal then.
Madeleine is missing.
FACT.
Why ?
The Mccanns placed their wining and dining, over their children's safety.
Good question.
You can pretend all you want, debunker, but you support the parents, not Madeleine.
Mind reading eh.
I do not support the parents.
I find their child care morally reprehensible and would never do that myself.
I find them a little creepy and unlikable and always have.
I do support their rights under the law.
-
If you are not a McCann supporter it's even worse. Because it means you support evil actions as long as they are not prosecuted in a Court of Law.
For you, neglect, abandonment, maybe robberies and murders are acceptable if they are not prosecuted.
-
If you are not a McCann supporter it's even worse. Because it means you support evil actions as long as they are not prosecuted in a Court of Law.
For you, neglect, abandonment, maybe robberies and murders are acceptable if they are not prosecuted.
They are not acceptable, but if someone is not proved guilty I have no right to say they are guilty.
It is a simple matter of morality.
This is part of the Rule of Law- innocent til proven guilty in a fair trial.
Simples.
-
No it's not morality. Morals are independent of law, But law is supposed to be based in morals.
Morally you couldn't care less if a criminal behaviour practiced by someone occurs, as long as they don't get caught by the law, isn't it?
-
No it's not morality. Morals are independent of law, But law is supposed to be based in morals.
Morally you couldn't care less if a criminal behaviour practiced by someone occurs, as long as they don't get caught by the law, isn't it?
Your ability to understand human behavior and logic is obviously limited.
What I am stating is the true position in any country under rule of law.
I do care that people go unpunished but accept that this does happen and that common citizens do not have the right to pitchfork others. Leave it to the police.
Did you grow up under Salazar- your latent fascism is showing.
-
From the NSPCC.
"There are many important things to consider before you decide to leave a child alone. These include:
*the age of the child
*the child's level of maturity and understanding
*the place where the child will be left
*how long and how often the child will be left alone
*whether or not there are any other children with the child.
If you do leave a child alone, remember to:
*leave a contact telephone number and be available to answer it immediately
*talk to your child about keeping safe at home and point out the potential dangers
*tell them not to answer the door to strangers
*give clear instructions on what to do in an emergency - they should be able to phone the emergency services
*leave a list of trusted people they can contact
*put obvious dangers out of reach of children, for example, medicines, matches
*make sure that your child is happy about the arrangements and confident about being left
*tell your child when you'll be back and make sure you're back on time
*talk to him or her about it afterwards
"As a mum or dad, looking after your child is your number one priority." "There's no legally set age at which it's OK to leave your child at home alone. It depends on whether your child is mature enough to cope in an emergency and feels happy about being left." "Your children rely upon you to protect them and you are responsible for making sure they are happy, safe and well looked after in your absence"
And above all "Remember
* Never leave a baby or young child home alone, not even for a few minutes, regardless of whether they are
sleeping or awake. The most common place for accidents is at home and children under the age of five are the most injured group."
-
No it's not morality. Morals are independent of law, But law is supposed to be based in morals.
Morally you couldn't care less if a criminal behaviour practiced by someone occurs, as long as they don't get caught by the law, isn't it?
Your ability to understand human behavior and logic is obviously limited.
What I am stating is the true position in any country under rule of law.
I do care that people go unpunished but accept that this does happen and that common citizens do not have the right to pitchfork others. Leave it to the police.
Did you grow up under Salazar- your latent fascism is showing.
Surprising that you should say that since I'm quite a successful psychologist, and no, I din't grow under Salazar - he was dead when I grew up. In fact a significant part of my education was in the UK, for better or for worse.
-
The NSPCC is an independent charity. Like the RSPCA it has special access to the courts to prosecute crimes.
It does not make the law and its recommendations are not law.
If you are looking for the Law and its interpretation you need to access Alison Cleland, http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetails.aspx?productid=93983&recordid=1839
known as The Bible in child protection circles. I have trained in child protection and sat on deliberations and have read Cleland.
Where are you getting your specious ideas from?
-
No it's not morality. Morals are independent of law, But law is supposed to be based in morals.
Morally you couldn't care less if a criminal behaviour practiced by someone occurs, as long as they don't get caught by the law, isn't it?
Your ability to understand human behavior and logic is obviously limited.
What I am stating is the true position in any country under rule of law.
I do care that people go unpunished but accept that this does happen and that common citizens do not have the right to pitchfork others. Leave it to the police.
Did you grow up under Salazar- your latent fascism is showing.
Surprising that you should say that since I'm quite a successful psychologist, and no, I din't grow under Salazar - he was dead when I grew up. In fact a significant part of my education was in the UK, for better or for worse.
Your approach is proto fascist- guilty til proven innocent, no rule of law, vigil[ censored word]m, more rights for the state than the citizen.
-
Yep sure, Luz is a successful pychologist
Salazar might be long time dead - but the fascist pig was still considered the 'greatest Portuguese' in a poll in PT in 2007
Did you vote in that poll, Luz and if so for whom?
Silly me, I just answered that question myself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Os_Grandes_Portugueses
-
What absolute rubbish is being talked here. They were in the garden to the apartments with virtually full view of 5A only 50 metres away. They were having their meal and had left the front door locked. They believed the window was locked as well, because they hadn't opened it all the time they were there.
OK 50 metres is a fairly long garden, but ours was that long. We had a busy city type dual carriageway at the front and we instantly heard our children if they called, even if we had our backs to them and were talking over the fence.
Like the Mccanns, we feared no one coming in, never gave it a thoought; it just didn't happen. We even left our side gate unlocked right by the open back door. Everybody in our road did the same. We all had long gardens and on summer evenings chatted over the fences. It goes on everywhere and in the sixties and seventies was completely normal. Everything changed after Madeleine went missing. Bet they all are OTT now.
Neglect? I wonder how many of you have been camping, or caravanning, and gone to join other campers nearby for a chat, a barbie or a sing song? Everybody does it, unless they are anti social. Nobody would expect someome to come in and steal their child.
In retrospect it would have been better to have a child alarm, BUT if the abduction was as i suspect, almost silent and via the front door, then nobody would have heard anything - cos with a monitor there nobody would have opened those noisy shutters. So the monitor would not have made any difference.
3 to 4 unfinished bottles of wine between 9 and with a full meal is not excessive; it is normal. It is time you guys got things in perspective. Give it a rest ... and start thinking ... instead of digging your knives in and twisting. As a sucessful psychologist 8(>((, you must know all about sadism, Luz.
Btw, did you board in the UK, Luz?