The sad mantra about neglect

[gilet]

Dunno whether this adds to the discussion at all?

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

What is it?

I am not in the habit of going to blogs for information.

[Mo Stache]

What is it?

I am not in the habit of going to blogs for information.

Blog written regarding the checks done on the kids.

[ferryman]

A blog but all extracted from the files.

[gilet]

A blog but all extracted from the files.

If it is all based on the files then I have read all the relevant statements regarding the checks.

Is there some pertinent point made regarding the checks? Can you summarise it here?

[ferryman]

If it is all based on the files then I have read all the relevant statements regarding the checks.

Is there some pertinent point made regarding the checks? Can you summarise it here?

In summary, that checks were run very regularly on the children, throughout the week, up to, and including the evening of Madeleine's abduction.

And that that is all well documented.

[stephen25000]

In summary, that checks were run very regularly on the children, throughout the week, up to, and including the evening of Madeleine's abduction.

And that that is all well documented.

Documented, but not independently verified.

[gilet]

In summary, that checks were run very regularly on the children, throughout the week, up to, and including the evening of Madeleine's abduction.

And that that is all well documented.

Thank you. I was of that impression myself which is why I can fully understand (though don't condone as I am working in hindsight) the actions of the McCanns and their friends who had put in place the same kind of checking as was evident in a number of resorts at the time and previously. Subsequently (that old friend hindsight) such arrangements have, I think, been dispensed with by all holiday organisations. It is the main reason that no claim of neglect could ever succeed in any court against the McCanns and is almost certainly why Social Authorities in the UK have not deemed their actions to warrant the removal of the other children.

Unfortunately certain posters are simply fixated on this issue and do not understand the fact that the McCanns were undertaking such checking (the equivalent or better than in many resorts) and their actions were not in fact neglectful. Foolish possibly, selfish maybe but neglect, no.

[gilet]

Documented, but not independently verified.

I believe you are wrong in that assertion as a number of OC staff did verify the constant movement back and fro of the parents. That is independent verification.

[stephen25000]

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?

What you want is all trace of reference to the Mccanns neglect of their children removed, and any reminder labelled as being vindictive.

Well I'm afraid it isn't. The cause of Madeleine's disappearance stems from the Mccanns behaviour and no matter how you might try to divert attention, that truth remains implicit.

[Mo Stache]

Documented, but not independently verified.

Verified or not, it was enough to satisfy Social Services and the Attorney General; hence no further action taken against the McCann's on that issue. 

[stephen25000]

I believe you are wrong in that assertion as a number of OC staff did verify the constant movement back and fro of the parents. That is independent verification.

Movement is one thing.

It does not mean the children were checked on as they stated.

[gilet]

Movement is one thing.

It does not mean the children were checked on as they stated.

So what are you suggesting the parents were doing? Such frequent disturbances to their own meals? What for? Were they getting the footy results off the radio? What else are you suggesting these frequent absences were for?

And what kind of verification do you think should have been made available? I would dearly love to know the answer to that one. Are you saying that just in case anything happened they should perchance have taken a timed photo at the scene of each check?

There is clear evidence that the parents were leaving the Tapas area and if you cannot suggest any other reason for such frequent absences then its quite likely that they are telling the truth.

[Redblossom]

In summary, that checks were run very regularly on the children, throughout the week, up to, and including the evening of Madeleine's abduction.

And that that is all well documented.

Regular checks, in Gerrys  own words, where he never actually opened the door to check on his kids, ever, just the once during the whole week, just listened outside to see if they were crying. To him, no crying and no visual means the babies must be fine
 >@@(*&)

[gilet]

Regular checks, in Gerrys  own words, where he never actually opened the door to check on his kids, ever, just the once during the whole week, just listened outside to see if they were crying. To him, no crying and no visual means the babies must be fine
 >@@(*&)

Exactly, the very same kind of check that was done by those holiday organisations which up till 2007 were operating such checking schemes and on which the Tapas group based their checking.

And, of course, the very same kind of check still done by hundreds of thousands of parents every night in their homes as they go to bed. They don't go into the child's bedroom as they know that can waken the children or disturb their sleep. They listen at the door to check for sounds. A perfectly normal action and as I say one done by most normal parents much of the time.

This is why the mantra about neglect is such a nonsense. What the McCanns were doing was being done by parents in their own homes in the UK and elsewhere and was being done by holiday organisations in their venues and resorts all over Europe. Having read the AG report I can fully understand his outlines of the arguments against the neglect charge.

I know you didn't mean it to support Gerry and Kate but what you posted has made it very clear that their actions were not so abnormal after all.

[Redblossom]

Exactly, the very same kind of check that was done by those holiday organisations which up till 2007 were operating such checking schemes and on which the Tapas group based their checking.

And, of course, the very same kind of check still done by hundreds of thousands of parents every night in their homes as they go to bed. They don't go into the child's bedroom as they know that can waken the children or disturb their sleep. They listen at the door to check for sounds. A perfectly normal action and as I say one done by most normal parents much of the time.

This is why the mantra about neglect is such a nonsense. What the McCanns were doing was being done by parents in their own homes in the UK and elsewhere and was being done by holiday organisations in their venues and resorts all over Europe. Having read the AG report I can fully understand his outlines of the arguments against the neglect charge.

I know you didn't mean it to support Gerry and Kate but what you posted has made it very clear that their actions were not so abnormal after all.

Well I think you have  destroyed any good points in your argument if you are  comparing parents being inside their own shut and/or locked and secure home with their kids and parents being out at dinner 50/100 metres away out of ear and eyeshot of their kids in an alien environment and unattended

There is also the matter that there was avery good reason PDL did not have a *listening service*