What constitutes child neglect?

[Luz]

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.

[debunker]

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.

[Luz]

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.

[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.

They were innocent of neglect in Portugal because the law there on neglect requires proof of intent.

See Luz's retraction above.

[John]

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.

[faithlilly]

@ 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.

[debunker]

@ 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.

[John]

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

[Luz]

@ 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.

[Luz]

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.

[debunker]

@ 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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.