The sad mantra about neglect

[gilet]

The McCanns are not guilty of neglecting their children.

Why do I say this?

Because I have read the files and because I have noted that there has never been any charge against them from any authority. Guilt is a legal term and as such should not be used lightly.

The McCanns did make a terrible decision namely that their children would be safe in the apartment each evening while they instituted the kind of checks prevalent up till that time in many resorts and holiday parks.

The McCanns have admitted their error of judgement. They are living with the consequences of that. The constant harping on about this demonstrates a kind of vigilante approach to the case which does not make the posts read like those of people with charitable hearts or any understanding of the nature of forgiveness and its beneficial effects both to the individual and to society.

People may or may not be aware that the one specific crime that the McCanns were completely cleared of having been guilty of was in fact "exposicao ou abandono" the Portuguese equivalent of neglect or the worse crime of abandoning a child. I suggest that those who repeatedly spam this mantra should read the Archival report instead of remaining fixated on an uncharitable and rather sad repetitive chant about something they don't appear to know the truth about.

Processo  Volume XVII - pages 4639-4649

The constant disruption of threads with this mantra does not take into account the fact that the legal authorities and the social authorities (with far greater knowledge of the case, the family, etc. than you have), have not in six years made any effort to charge the McCanns.

Perhaps those reading here without blinkers will understand that there probably are good reasons for this lack of charges and those reasons may well be far closer to the legal reasons offered by the Attorney General of Portugal for his decision not to charge rather than some fanciful notions that have been proffered by anti McCanns such as the amazing influence of Clarence Mitchell or the McCanns themselves to control the courts, the media and just about everybody else.

When people manage to explain why there have been no charges (and such would be possible for crimes committed against a UK citizen even when abroad) then this mantra may have meaning or even purpose. Till then, it remains the sad mantra of someone who is showing himself to be both uncharitable and rather vindictive.

I therefore ask those spamming the forum with this mantra to please explain why

1) they do not accept the fact that the Portuguese actually cleared the McCanns of this charge

and

2) why there have been no charges laid against the McCanns by UK authorities.

Till they do that, then their mantra is pointless.

[Benice]

The McCanns are not guilty of neglecting their children.

Why do I say this?

Because I have read the files and because I have noted that there has never been any charge against them from any authority. Guilt is a legal term and as such should not be used lightly.

The McCanns did make a terrible decision namely that their children would be safe in the apartment each evening while they instituted the kind of checks prevalent up till that time in many resorts and holiday parks.

The McCanns have admitted their error of judgement. They are living with the consequences of that. The constant harping on about this demonstrates a kind of vigilante approach to the case which does not make the posts read like those of people with charitable hearts or any understanding of the nature of forgiveness and its beneficial effects both to the individual and to society.

People may or may not be aware that the one specific crime that the McCanns were completely cleared of having been guilty of was in fact "exposicao ou abandono" the Portuguese equivalent of neglect or the worse crime of abandoning a child. I suggest that those who repeatedly spam this mantra should read the Archival report instead of remaining fixated on an uncharitable and rather sad repetitive chant about something they don't appear to know the truth about.

Processo  Volume XVII - pages 4639-4649

The constant disruption of threads with this mantra does not take into account the fact that the legal authorities and the social authorities (with far greater knowledge of the case, the family, etc. than you have), have not in six years made any effort to charge the McCanns.

Perhaps those reading here without blinkers will understand that there probably are good reasons for this lack of charges and those reasons may well be far closer to the legal reasons offered by the Attorney General of Portugal for his decision not to charge rather than some fanciful notions that have been proffered by anti McCanns such as the amazing influence of Clarence Mitchell or the McCanns themselves to control the courts, the media and just about everybody else.

When people manage to explain why there have been no charges (and such would be possible for crimes committed against a UK citizen even when abroad) then this mantra may have meaning or even purpose. Till then, it remains the sad mantra of someone who is showing himself to be both uncharitable and rather vindictive.

I therefore ask those spamming the forum with this mantra to please explain why

1) they do not accept the fact that the Portuguese actually cleared the McCanns of this charge

and

2) why there have been no charges laid against the McCanns by UK authorities.

Till they do that, then their mantra is pointless.

Excelllent post Gilet - I await the responses to those two questions with interest.

[Rachel Granada]

I think some people just enjoy using the "neglect" as a stick to beat the McCanns with.

[stephen25000]

The McCanns are not guilty of neglecting their children.

Why do I say this?

Because I have read the files and because I have noted that there has never been any charge against them from any authority. Guilt is a legal term and as such should not be used lightly.

The McCanns did make a terrible decision namely that their children would be safe in the apartment each evening while they instituted the kind of checks prevalent up till that time in many resorts and holiday parks.

The McCanns have admitted their error of judgement. They are living with the consequences of that. The constant harping on about this demonstrates a kind of vigilante approach to the case which does not make the posts read like those of people with charitable hearts or any understanding of the nature of forgiveness and its beneficial effects both to the individual and to society.

People may or may not be aware that the one specific crime that the McCanns were completely cleared of having been guilty of was in fact "exposicao ou abandono" the Portuguese equivalent of neglect or the worse crime of abandoning a child. I suggest that those who repeatedly spam this mantra should read the Archival report instead of remaining fixated on an uncharitable and rather sad repetitive chant about something they don't appear to know the truth about.

Processo  Volume XVII - pages 4639-4649

The constant disruption of threads with this mantra does not take into account the fact that the legal authorities and the social authorities (with far greater knowledge of the case, the family, etc. than you have), have not in six years made any effort to charge the McCanns.

Perhaps those reading here without blinkers will understand that there probably are good reasons for this lack of charges and those reasons may well be far closer to the legal reasons offered by the Attorney General of Portugal for his decision not to charge rather than some fanciful notions that have been proffered by anti McCanns such as the amazing influence of Clarence Mitchell or the McCanns themselves to control the courts, the media and just about everybody else.

When people manage to explain why there have been no charges (and such would be possible for crimes committed against a UK citizen even when abroad) then this mantra may have meaning or even purpose. Till then, it remains the sad mantra of someone who is showing himself to be both uncharitable and rather vindictive.

I therefore ask those spamming the forum with this mantra to please explain why

1) they do not accept the fact that the Portuguese actually cleared the McCanns of this charge

and

2) why there have been no charges laid against the McCanns by UK authorities.

Till they do that, then their mantra is pointless.

1. The Mccanns were not cleared  , as they haven't been charged in the first place.

The disappearance of Madeleine still stands with the FCO as 'type of crime unknown'.

2. The SY team reviewing/investigating the case, are by and large the ones who fouled up in the conviction of Barry George.

 Evidence of abduction NONE,forensically or otherwise.

A  'child being carried', since when does that prove abduction ?

[Benice]

1. The Mccanns were not cleared  , as they haven't been charged in the first place.

The disappearance of Madeleine still stands with the FCO as 'type of crime unknown'.

2. The SY team reviewing/investigating the case, are by and large the ones who fouled up in the conviction of Barry George.

 Evidence of abduction NONE,forensically or otherwise.


A  'child being carried', since when does that prove abduction ?

What has any of the above got to do with the 2 questions asked by Gilet regarding the mantra about neglect.

Here are the questions again.  They are asked in relation to the neglect issue not the whole case.

Quote

I therefore ask those spamming the forum with this mantra to please explain why

1) they do not accept the fact that the Portuguese actually cleared the McCanns of this charge

and

2) why there have been no charges laid against the McCanns by UK authorities.

Till they do that, then their mantra is pointless.
Unquote

As it is you who persists in spamming the board with the 'neglect'  mantra - I await your responses to these questions.

[gilet]

1. The Mccanns were not cleared  , as they haven't been charged in the first place.

The disappearance of Madeleine still stands with the FCO as 'type of crime unknown'.

2. The SY team reviewing/investigating the case, are by and large the ones who fouled up in the conviction of Barry George.

 Evidence of abduction NONE,forensically or otherwise.

A  'child being carried', since when does that prove abduction ?

Please do try to keep the two matters separate.

There is the case of neglect for which there was a categorical explanation in the Archival report as to why the McCanns were not charged. I suggest instead of simply repeating the mantra you go and read the pages I have referenced.

The explanation as to why they were not charged very clearly lays out the reasons they are not guilty (and therefore should not be charged) of the crime.

It appears from your post that you don't understand the role of the AG in portuguese law or for that matter the role of the CPS in UK law. If there are no grounds for charging a person then that means that there is no evidence of their guilt. If there is evidence of guilt the AG or CPS will move to charge the person.



Either you are deliberately being disruptive or you simply do not understand the purpose of dividing forums into separate threads. This thread is about neglect.

Can you please explain why you are taking it upon yourself to spam this mantra of neglect when the AG has specifically determined that the McCanns are not guilty of this charge. Are you claiming that you do not believe his reasoning as laid out in the report or what is your motive? If you do not believe his reasoning could you please explain why?

And secondly, could you please as I asked in the OP, explain why there have been no charges against the McCanns for neglect in the UK?

As for abduction and other matters I will reply in the correct thread. I won't assist you in your disruptive tactics.

[gilet]

What has any of the above got to do with the 2 questions asked by Gilet regarding the mantra about neglect.

Here are the questions again.  They are asked in relation to the neglect issue not the whole case.

Quote

I therefore ask those spamming the forum with this mantra to please explain why

1) they do not accept the fact that the Portuguese actually cleared the McCanns of this charge

and

2) why there have been no charges laid against the McCanns by UK authorities.

Till they do that, then their mantra is pointless.
Unquote

As it is you who persists in spamming the board with the 'neglect'  mantra - I await your responses to these questions.

I wonder why stephen25000 is so clearly avoiding the issue?

It is after all him who has been spamming the forum with this neglect mantra for a while now.

Judging from the response and the confusion (either deliberate or from not having read the files carefully) of the two separate issues (neglect and disappearance) I am doubtful that a proper response will be forthcoming.

But I have offered him this thread to explain his reasoning and I look forward to him doing so.

[stephen25000]

I wonder why stephen25000 is so clearly avoiding the issue?

It is after all him who has been spamming the forum with this neglect mantra for a while now.

Judging from the response and the confusion (either deliberate or from not having read the files carefully) of the two separate issues (neglect and disappearance) I am doubtful that a proper response will be forthcoming.

But I have offered him this thread to explain his reasoning and I look forward to him doing so.

LET'S TRY AGAIN.

The Mccanns haven't been charged.

The UK authorities have no jurisdiction in this case, as it occurred in Portugal.

As to spamming, don't be stupid.

From my viewpoint and many others, the 'spammers' are the mccannites, who are on here to defend their heroes.

[gilet]

The answers are-:
1) Because the authorities believe the parents are involved with the murder/concealment or accidental death (as stated by Goncalo Amaral in his book) of their child's body and want to charge them with this rather than a neglect case but don't have enough evidence-yet,
2)They didn't neglect their children in the jurisdiction of the UK.

The book by Amaral is irrelevant to the conclusions made by the PJ and the AG of Portugal at the end of the case, many months after Amaral was so humiliatingly dismissed for his indiscretion in talking to the media.

Your insinuation that a desire to charge the McCanns with murder and concealment of a body flies in the face of reality.  Again the reality of the full investigation rather than the Paiva report mid way through it.

There is a clear and specific outline of the legal reasons why the McCanns could not in Portugal be charged with neglect or abandoning the children. Clearly you have either not read that or have forgotten it.

The two issues are entirely separate and the AG makes this fact clear.

He also makes it clear that the PJ have no evidence of any crime having been committed by the McCanns so your insinutation that the PT authorities wish to charge them is simply nonsensical.  But reliance on the outpourings of a disgruntled policeman who was humiliatingly thrown off the case and was later convicted as having effectively lied to the court in a similar case might well lead you to mistaken conclusions. I can see that.

As for the fact that the McCanns did not neglect the children in the UK, are you actually unaware that there are provisions whereby UK citizens who commit crimes abroad can be charged in the UK?

[stephen25000]

The book by Amaral is irrelevant to the conclusions made by the PJ and the AG of Portugal at the end of the case, many months after Amaral was so humiliatingly dismissed for his indiscretion in talking to the media.

Your insinuation that a desire to charge the McCanns with murder and concealment of a body flies in the face of reality.  Again the reality of the full investigation rather than the Paiva report mid way through it.

There is a clear and specific outline of the legal reasons why the McCanns could not in Portugal be charged with neglect or abandoning the children. Clearly you have either not read that or have forgotten it.

The two issues are entirely separate and the AG makes this fact clear.

He also makes it clear that the PJ have no evidence of any crime having been committed by the McCanns so your insinutation that the PT authorities wish to charge them is simply nonsensical.  But reliance on the outpourings of a disgruntled policeman who was humiliatingly thrown off the case and was later convicted as having effectively lied to the court in a similar case might well lead you to mistaken conclusions. I can see that.

As for the fact that the McCanns did not neglect the children in the UK, are you actually unaware that there are provisions whereby UK citizens who commit crimes abroad can be charged in the UK?

YET AGAIN.

A lack of evidence, i.e. in this case forensics backing up the indications of the dogs, does not mean a crime wasn't committed.

By that same note it works the other way, as stated earlier. Meanwhile there is not one piecve of evidence forensic or otherwise that shows an abduction took place.

[gilet]

LET'S TRY AGAIN.

The Mccanns haven't been charged.

The UK authorities have no jurisdiction in this case, as it occurred in Portugal.

As to spamming, don't be stupid.

From my viewpoint and many others, the 'spammers' are the mccannites, who are on here to defend their heroes.

Of course they have not been charged. The reason being they are innocent. Innocent people against whom there is no evidence of a crime don't get charged.

Perhaps you didn't know that?

And as for jurisdiction, I refer you to my above post.

Now the two questions I asked.

Why are you unable to accept the fact that the Attorney General specifically stated that the McCanns were not guilty of the crime of neglect/abandonment? Why are you unable to accept the clear legal reasons that were outlined and explain why they are not guilty of that crime? Why do you repeat this mantra without explaining how you know better than he does, without explaining why his legal arguments are wrong?

Please indicate how the AG of Portugal got the law wrong when he outlined why the McCanns are not guilty of neglect.

And please explain why (when it is possible) the UK authorities have not removed the other children from the McCanns or charged them with a crime against a UK citizen abroad?

And I repeat that the way in which you introduce the neglect issue in every thread is definitely spamming. Other threads are not discussing this issue but you spam them in order to disrupt the topic at hand as evidenced this morning with the triathlon thread.

[gilet]

YET AGAIN.

A lack of evidence, i.e. in this case forensics backing up the indications of the dogs, does not mean a crime wasn't committed.

By that same note it works the other way, as stated earlier. Meanwhile there is not one piecve of evidence forensic or otherwise that shows an abduction took place.

This thread is about the neglect issue which is entirely separate to the question of death or abduction.

The fact that you and at least one other poster cannot differentiate between the two issues is either a deliberate attempt once again to disrupt or is an indication that you simply do not fully understand the issues.

Have you in fact read the full archival report?

Can you please explain what it is in the AG's outline of the legal arguments about the neglect issue which you disagree with?

[stephen25000]

Of course they have not been charged. The reason being they are innocent. Innocent people against whom there is no evidence of a crime don't get charged.

Perhaps you didn't know that?

And as for jurisdiction, I refer you to my above post.

Now the two questions I asked.

Why are you unable to accept the fact that the Attorney General specifically stated that the McCanns were not guilty of the crime of neglect/abandonment? Why are you unable to accept the clear legal reasons that were outlined and explain why they are not guilty of that crime? Why do you repeat this mantra without explaining how you know better than he does, without explaining why his legal arguments are wrong?

Please indicate how the AG of Portugal got the law wrong when he outlined why the McCanns are not guilty of neglect.

And please explain why (when it is possible) the UK authorities have not removed the other children from the McCanns or charged them with a crime against a UK citizen abroad?

And I repeat that the way in which you introduce the neglect issue in every thread is definitely spamming. Other threads are not discussing this issue but you spam them in order to disrupt the topic at hand as evidenced this morning with the triathlon thread.

READ THIS AND YOU MIGHT COMPREHEND, BUT I DOUBT IT.

'
''There is no legal age limit for leaving a
child on their own, but it's an offence to
do so if it places them at risk. Parents
can be prosecuted for neglect if they
leave a child unsupervised "in a manner
likely to cause unnecessary suffering or
injury to health".

(cite - Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (England and Wales), Children
and Young Persons (Scotland) Act and Children and Young Persons Act
(Northern Ireland) 1968.) '


The SPAMMING is coming from people like you who won't accept the basic precept of what the Mccanns failed to do.

[stephen25000]

In addition from another poster who has put this very succinctly..................

'There can be NO DOUBT that the McCann children were left alone in just such circumstances, none at all. If you require evidence of this, I suggest you consider the fact that one of them has been missing for six years. Despite the McCann's repeated mantra - ''there is no evidence Madeleine has come to any harm'' - I think any person with half a brain can understand that forcibly separating a child from her family in this manner constitutes unnecessary suffering, as defined in the act.

So I suggest the toadies try to understand the difference between someone who is not guilty of by reason of that fact being established in a court of law, and someone who was never prosecuted because the authorities took the decision not to charge them at that time.

But let's make no mistake - in leaving their children in the way they did, they exposed them to danger, and whatever happened to Madeleine - at best - resulted from their decision to leave her unattended and unprotected.

And those actions are, quite clearly, neglect. Whether they were charged or not. '

[gilet]

READ THIS AND YOU MIGHT COMPREHEND, BUT I DOUBT IT.

'
''There is no legal age limit for leaving a
child on their own, but it's an offence to
do so if it places them at risk. Parents
can be prosecuted for neglect if they
leave a child unsupervised "in a manner
likely to cause unnecessary suffering or
injury to health".

(cite - Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (England and Wales), Children
and Young Persons (Scotland) Act and Children and Young Persons Act
(Northern Ireland) 1968.) '


The SPAMMING is coming from people like you who won't accept the basic precept of what the Mccanns failed to do.

I am fully aware of the quote you have included in your post.

But you seem to be entirely missing the point.

The point is that knowing that, as I am sure you must agree they do, the UK authorities have chosen to do nothing. Now is that because they understand the reasoning of the AG of Portugal that there was no intent or action of abandoning the children due to the checking system in place or can you offer some other explanation?

You see, the real point is that in light of that law there are still no charges and this is six years after the event.

Now can you please address that specific issue?

I disagree with you about spamming. My posts for example are invariably on topic and are only repetitive when the poster I am debating with is entirely missing the clear point I am making.

However your posts are spam because they are thrown in repeatedly into threads which they do not relate to.