The sad mantra about neglect

[stephen25000]

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.

The UK authorities have no jurisdiction in this case, so that point is irrelevant.

As to why the Portuguese never have charged the Mccanns, well that is beyond any logic.

However, there are explanations for that.

As to spamming, we will have to agree to disagree.

[stephen25000]

Again to reinforce, from another poster on Amazon.

This has been stated here before, but never answered with any reasoned logic.

'NSPCC advice (supported by Government advice):

As a mum or dad, looking after your child is your number one priority......
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.
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.
It is OK for you to make time for yourself, but only if your child is safe and
appropriately cared for.

How to decide if you can safely leave a child alone:
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.

What to remember if you leave a child alone:
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.'

[gilet]

The UK authorities have no jurisdiction in this case, so that point is irrelevant.

As to why the Portuguese never have charged the Mccanns, well that is beyond any logic.

However, there are explanations for that.

As to spamming, we will have to agree to disagree.

Firstly you have ignored the point I made about UK social authorities removing the other children if they believe there has been a crime and no charges or court case is necessary. Clearly that has not occurred. Can you please explain why that is?

Secondly, you say the reason that the AG of Portugal chose not to prosecute the McCanns for neglect is beyond any logic.

Can you please identify the aspects of the clear legal outlines he put into his report explaining his decision which you believe defy logic?

[gilet]

Again to reinforce, from another poster on Amazon.

This has been stated here before, but never answered with any reasoned logic.

'NSPCC advice (supported by Government advice):

As a mum or dad, looking after your child is your number one priority......
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.
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.
It is OK for you to make time for yourself, but only if your child is safe and
appropriately cared for.

How to decide if you can safely leave a child alone:
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.

What to remember if you leave a child alone:
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.'

I am glad you were able to call on a supporter on Amazon for that.

It very nicely reinforces my point.

Even in light of all that the Social Authorities in the UK have not chosen to remove the other children from the McCanns. We know they do not have to have anything other than reasonable suspicion of neglect to do so (no court case is necessary).

So in light of all that can you please explain why no action of that sort has been taken.

Or is the neglect mantra simply that? A vindictive nasty mantra with no basis in fact?

Till you explain then it will be seen as simply a mantra with no foundation.

[Angelo222]

The law in Portugal is very clear as to when someone can be charged with child neglect.  It has to amount to abandonment basically before parents can be charged let alone prosecuted.   Clearly this was not the case with the McCanns and their children.   

That said however, Gilets claim in the opening sentence of the opening post is nothing more than a smokescreen.  The McCanns were guilty of neglect, of reckless behaviour towards their children.  Leaving three young children under the age of 4 alone in a strange apartment in a foreign holiday resort was an act of the utmost stupidity and was reckless in anyone's book.  They put their interests before that of the children and they paid the ultimate price!

Tell us Gilet, were the McCanns subject to social services reporting on their return from Portugal after having lost their eldest daughter as a direct result of their own stupidity?

[gilet]

The law in Portugal is very clear as to when someone can be charged with child neglect.  It has to amount to abandonment basically before parents can be charged let alone prosecuted.   Clearly this was not the case with the McCanns and their children.   

That said however, Gilets claim in the opening sentence of the opening post is nothing more than a smokescreen.  The McCanns were guilty of neglect, of reckless behaviour towards their children.  Leaving three young children under the age of 4 alone in a strange apartment in a foreign holiday resort was an act of the utmost stupidity and was reckless in anyone's book.  They put their interests before that of the children and they paid the ultimate price!

That may well be your opinon with hindsight. It is also the opinion of the McCanns with hindsight. That said it does not in any way help to get to the truth of what happened to Madeleine McCann to repeat the neglect issue as a mantra. It is accepted as a fact that the decision the parents took was with hindsight, wrong. Nobody would argue with that, least of all the McCanns themselves.

Nor have you explained why when such neglect is as you appear to claim, so serious that the UK authorities have not as they have frequently done in the case of other families, removed the remaining children.

And it does not excuse the fact that (as you have seen this morning) certain posters use the neglect mantra as a clear attempt to disrupt threads which have nothing to do with that issue.

[stephen25000]

I am glad you were able to call on a supporter on Amazon for that.

It very nicely reinforces my point.

Even in light of all that the Social Authorities in the UK have not chosen to remove the other children from the McCanns. We know they do not have to have anything other than reasonable suspicion of neglect to do so (no court case is necessary).

So in light of all that can you please explain why no action of that sort has been taken.

Or is the neglect mantra simply that? A vindictive nasty mantra with no basis in fact?

Till you explain then it will be seen as simply a mantra with no foundation.

From the same poster on Amazon.

Please read carefully.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advice/for-parents/keeping-your-child-safe/being-home-alone/home-alone_wda96754.html#decide if it helps

And not being prosecuted does not mean that the offence did not take place - it can mean that the offence was ignored (I could have been done for speeding many times as I have gone too fast for the speed limit, as no doubt have we all - but I have not been prosecuted) or it could mean that the decision was made to deal with the offence in other ways. Prosecution is a last resort in Child Care cases

[Chinagirl]

Tell us Gilet, were the McCanns subject to social services reporting on their return from Portugal after having lost their eldest daughter as a direct result of their own stupidity?

It was widely reported that they received at least one visit from social services shortly after their return from Portugal.

[Angelo222]

That may well be your opinon with hindsight. It is also the opinion of the McCanns with hindsight. That said it does not in any way help to get to the truth of what happened to Madeleine McCann to repeat the neglect issue as a mantra. It is accepted as a fact that the decision the parents took was with hindsight, wrong. Nobody would argue with that, least of all the McCanns themselves.

Nor have you explained why when such neglect is as you appear to claim, so serious that the UK authorities have not as they have frequently done in the case of other families, removed the remaining children.

And it does not excuse the fact that (as you have seen this morning) certain posters use the neglect mantra as a clear attempt to disrupt threads which have nothing to do with that issue.

At the end of the day, if Madeleine has been abducted and I stress the 'if' here as there is no direct evidence that she has been, it is the abductor who should be accountable for the crime.  The McCann's conduct might well have being a contributing factor in facilitating an abduction but it is not of sufficient seriousness to constitute a crime in its own right.  Their stupidity not being of sufficient seriousness to countenance state involvement in any further action against them.

The spamming of threads and the constant attempts to sidetrack topics has not gone unnoticed and will inevitably attract sanctions if it continues.

[Angelo222]

Tell us Gilet, were the McCanns subject to social services reporting on their return from Portugal after having lost their eldest daughter as a direct result of their own stupidity?

It was widely reported that they received at least one visit from social services shortly after their return from Portugal.

Thank you Chinagirl, I was aware of that but it is usual for SS to make follow up visits in such cases where young children are involved.

[gilet]

From the same poster on Amazon.

Please read carefully.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advice/for-parents/keeping-your-child-safe/being-home-alone/home-alone_wda96754.html#decide if it helps

And not being prosecuted does not mean that the offence did not take place - it can mean that the offence was ignored (I could have been done for speeding many times as I have gone too fast for the speed limit, as no doubt have we all - but I have not been prosecuted) or it could mean that the decision was made to deal with the offence in other ways. Prosecution is a last resort in Child Care cases

May I just ask is it normal for people posting here to have a back up "team" on other forums? Is it normal practice here to copy posts from other forums?

But once again you have either deliberately chosen to avoid the point I made or have simply not understood the clear English I used.#

I never mentioned Social Authorities bringing a prosecution. I specifically mentioned the fact that the children have not been removed from the McCann family which could very easily happen with no prosecution and would happen if there was any serious concern about the parental capabilities of the McCanns such as them having caused the disappearance of their child (wherever that may have happened) by neglect.

You still have not addressed that point. I wonder are you able to do so.

The fact is that the Social Authorities clearly do not believe the neglect issue in the way you do. Nor did the AG of Portugal.

I know who I prefer to be guided by.

[stephen25000]

May I just ask is it normal for people posting here to have a back up "team" on other forums? Is it normal practice here to copy posts from other forums?

But once again you have either deliberately chosen to avoid the point I made or have simply not understood the clear English I used.#

I never mentioned Social Authorities bringing a prosecution. I specifically mentioned the fact that the children have not been removed from the McCann family which could very easily happen with no prosecution and would happen if there was any serious concern about the parental capabilities of the McCanns such as them having caused the disappearance of their child (wherever that may have happened) by neglect.

You still have not addressed that point. I wonder are you able to do so.

The fact is that the Social Authorities clearly do not believe the neglect issue in the way you do. Nor did the AG of Portugal.

I know who I prefer to be guided by.

Your lack of comprehension on this issue I find quite disturbing.

The Mccanns placed their children in unnecessary danger, all three them .

Consequently Madeleine 'disappeared'.

As to why the Portuguese authorities didn't prosecute them, I do not know for certain. However, UK governmental interference cannot be ruled out.

As to other posters points of views, why do you object to them, even if from elsewhere ?

e.g.

'Don't the neglect-deniers have any concept of personal responsibility?

If they really think that it is acceptable to leave tiny children alone every evening, popping by occasionally to have a listen, failing to have any plan in place if something goes wrong, with no way for the children to get in touch with them, even if they were old enough to manage to do this, which they weren't, and without even caring enough to ensure the premises were secure - well frankly if they feel any of that is acceptable, they should NEVER take on the responsibility of parenthood.

There is no ifs buts or maybes here - and whether criminal charges followed or not - what the McCanns and their friends did was wrong, and it was neglect. Not a bit, not a grey area, not open to interpretation, not a matter of opinion. It was wrong................................... '

[gilet]

Your lack of comprehension on this issue I find quite disturbing.

The Mccanns placed their children in unnecessary danger, all three them .

Consequently Madeleine 'disappeared'.

As to why the Portuguese authorities didn't prosecute them, I do not know for certain. However, UK governmental interference cannot be ruled out.

As to other posters points of views, why do you object to them, even if from elsewhere ?

e.g.

'Don't the neglect-deniers have any concept of personal responsibility?

If they really think that it is acceptable to leave tiny children alone every evening, popping by occasionally to have a listen, failing to have any plan in place if something goes wrong, with no way for the children to get in touch with them, even if they were old enough to manage to do this, which they weren't, and without even caring enough to ensure the premises were secure - well frankly if they feel any of that is acceptable, they should NEVER take on the responsibility of parenthood.

There is no ifs buts or maybes here - and whether criminal charges followed or not - what the McCanns and their friends did was wrong, and it was neglect. Not a bit, not a grey area, not open to interpretation, not a matter of opinion. It was wrong................................... '

There is no lack of comprehension on my part.  The disturbing aspect of this debate is that you are ignoring the law and relying on a convicted crimimal's speculation.

And there is a very disturbing but clear lack of logic on your part.

It is not an automatic consequence of leaving the children that Madeleine "disappeared". There is no logical "consequence" involved. Besides being left a crime had to be committed. Something you apparently choose to ignore.

But now we have your answer as to why the McCanns were not prosecuted.

As I predicted in the OP you have chosen to speculate wildly (based no doubt on the claims of Amaral) that there was UK government interference.

You have totally ignored the very clear and very logical reasons for there being no prosecution for neglect in Portugal as outlined by the Attorney General in the Archival report. You have simply not bothered to look at this and give a rebuttal to the legal arguments and have chosen to rely on the criminal Amaral who was thrown off the case for not being able to keep his mouth shut for your guidance. That does explain a great deal.

But it does not put aside the fact that there was no need for any political interference. There simply was no legal justification for any charge. There was nothing to show the McCanns were guilty of this neglect you claim.

I am sorry about your rant about parents. Clearly you are perfection personified. Most people are not up to the standards you seem to take upon yourself though.

As I have stated the McCanns have already made the point that they will never forgive themselves for this error of judgement (easy to see with hindsight but not so easy in the climate of 2007 when such checking was by no means unknown). Can you explain what your purpose in vindictively repeating your neglect mantra really is?

What do you think they should now do?

Do you think your constant repeating of the mantra will in any way assist their other two children? Or are you simply wanting some kind of vigilante revenge? What precisely is the point you are making.

Everyone knows it was a serious mistake. You are repeating (and yes I will use the word 'spamming' again) the same old point. You are not able to debate it as I have demonstrated by the fact that you cannot answer the legal points made by the AG in the archival report. You are simply repeating the same mantra and I can only presume that it is because you are deliberately being vindictive.

Is there some other point in your constant repetition of what is already known by everyone here or am I right and you are just a sad person demonstrating a nasty streak of vindictiveness?

[gilet]

May I just ask is it normal for people posting here to have a back up "team" on other forums? Is it normal practice here to copy posts from other forums?

But once again you have either deliberately chosen to avoid the point I made or have simply not understood the clear English I used.#

I never mentioned Social Authorities bringing a prosecution. I specifically mentioned the fact that the children have not been removed from the McCann family which could very easily happen with no prosecution and would happen if there was any serious concern about the parental capabilities of the McCanns such as them having caused the disappearance of their child (wherever that may have happened) by neglect.

You still have not addressed that point. I wonder are you able to do so.

And you deliberately it seems refuse to acknowledge the two points I have made previously that there are two separate potential crimes, neglect and a separate crime relating to the actual disappearance. You ignore the latter and only focus on the former or you conflate the two. Neither action allows for a sensible contribution to this debate from you.

The fact is that the Social Authorities clearly do not believe the neglect issue in the way you do. Nor did the AG of Portugal.

I know who I prefer to be guided by.

[ferryman]

Dunno whether this adds to the discussion at all?

http://madeleine-writingthewrongs.info/checks-on-the-children-the-mccanns-achilles-heel/