What constitutes child neglect?

[Angelo222]

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?

[debunker]

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.

[stephen25000]

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 ?

[debunker]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[Angelo222]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[Angelo222]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[Angelo222]

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!!!

[debunker]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[Luz]

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.