What constitutes child neglect?

[Luz]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[Luz]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[Luz]

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?

[debunker]

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.

[stephen25000]

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."

[Luz]

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.

[debunker]

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?

[debunker]

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.

[registrar]

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