Has the McCann's Actions Turned a Supportive Public Against Them ?

[Aiofe]

I'm meeting with the child protective services team on wednesday next week so I'll ask them if this is what they have experienced.

N

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2013/05/09/care-applications-rise-70-in-years-since-baby-p-case/#.Un4WjPnIaAk

The number of care applications made by social workers in England soared by 70% in the years since the Baby Peter case, statistics released by Cafcass revealed today.

The family courts body published data for care applications across the 152 councils in England. It shows a 70% rise in total between 2012-13 and 2008-09, when news of Baby Peter’s death broke. It also revealed a 64% increase in referrals per 10,000 children, showing the rise is due to social work decisions, rather than population growth.

Over the same period, care applications per 10,000 children rose from 5.9 to 9.7 - a rise of 64%. The figures also reveal huge local variations, with some authorities with small care numbers seeing applications rise by up to 500%. In total, 139 local authorities have seen rising referrals, while 13 councils have seen decreases.

[BigFatBlonde]

whats happened is that now far more professionals are having to undergo safeguarding training and are duty bound to report any suspicions, causing a tsunami of referrals

This is true, and each LA has their own implementation of safeguarding policy/procedure so they do have differences in the way that they deal with reports.

In the 3 LA which I most deal with they take the referral on a central line, this allows them to filter out a lot of the unnecessary referrals. Any they are unsure about get passed on to a more senior worker who then filters out a few more before passing the genuine referrals on for investigation.

So yes, they are getting a boat load of referrals through, but only a small percentage actually land on the desk of a social worker.

N

[BigFatBlonde]

Quite right.  And they wouldn't have been anyhow, because it was standard practice at Pontins /Butlins and at hotels to listen check every half hour.

THe Mccanns checking arrangements far exceeded that.  They VISUALLY checked every half hour and Matt also listening checkedm but that was extra to the listening checks and not instead of one of them


The Mccanns made a mistake, a very understandable one cos they were like in their back garden and only 50 crow flies metres away. 

But then they behaved in an examplorary manner visually checking every half an hour.  Better than thousands, nay millions, of peoples checks around the hotels of the world.



Examplorary after the first very understandable mistake

See the first answer on this thread, from the Google Maps admin - "distances are approximations only"

N

[BigFatBlonde]

Professionals have had to have such training for over two decades. The recent increase is due to the fallout from the Baby P case.

More accurately *certain professionals* have. For example it has only been in the last 4 years that I've had to have the training. In that time I've worked with high risk criminals and young people (16-25)

N

[Aiofe]

Oh dear - how indeed do people like to misunderstand.  So last post

I am also aware of UK law. I was giving my feelings on the situation, and what would have been looked at as the relevant aspects.  And pointing out as I have many times before that prosecution is not the only response to neglect (of any kind) so the fact that the McCanns were not prosecuted does not mean that leaving the children in that way was OK.

As for   

Maybe not to you.....

It was legally OK as no formal action was taken. You should know the law and how it works. Placing a child on the Protection Register has no meaning regarding culpability, and even less meaning is attached to social workers investigations and words of advice.

Technically, legally and formally, the Mccanns have made no acts in the UK or Portugal that were actionable in any manner that could apportion blame.

Anyone saying that they are in some way guilty of neglect is only expressing an unsupportable personal opinion and misuse of the word neglect which has legal connotations.

Did they 'neglect' the child in an absolute way- NO

Did they act in a way that some people (including me) might find doubtful - YES

Do people have the right to cyber bully them about it - NO

[Aiofe]

This is true, and each LA has their own implementation of safeguarding policy/procedure so they do have differences in the way that they deal with reports.

In the 3 LA which I most deal with they take the referral on a central line, this allows them to filter out a lot of the unnecessary referrals. Any they are unsure about get passed on to a more senior worker who then filters out a few more before passing the genuine referrals on for investigation.

So yes, they are getting a boat load of referrals through, but only a small percentage actually land on the desk of a social worker.

N

What a load of Tosh. All referrals have to be assessed by a qualified social worker at some level. Filtering by senior staff takes out experience from teams.

[Aiofe]

More accurately *certain professionals* have. For example it has only been in the last 4 years that I've had to have the training. In that time I've worked with high risk criminals and young people (16-25)

N

Of course all professionals don't have to do this. All professionals concerned with the care of children do- Doctors, Nurses, Social Workers, Police, Teachers etc.

[Aiofe]

So are we agreed that we should avoid any words that state or imply that the McCanns are in any way guilty of formal neglect.

Their standards may not be your standards, but what they did is not illegal.

[sadie]

But Sadie, I genuinely can't see that the exact distance matters.  The children were out of sight and hearing on unfamiliar territory - that is what matters to me

After 5 days the local territory was familiar to them.  Most people in PdL are British or English speakers.

Without stepping outside the patio doors even, they only had to pull the curtains aside a little and the light from within would have immediately shone out with them silhouetted in that brightly lit patch.  The tapas group were a bright group.  Someone would immediately have noticed the change in the Mccann apartment.  Remember it was only about 50 metres away.

[sadie]

After 5 days the local territory was familiar to them.  Most people in PdL are British or English speakers.

Without stepping outside the patio doors even, they only had to pull the curtains aside a little and the light from within would have immediately shone out with them silhouetted in that brightly lit patch.  The tapas group were a bright group.  Someone would immediately have noticed the change in the Mccann apartment.  Remember it was only about 50 metres away.

Had Madeleine stepped out, then her eyes would have been drawn to the one bright spot, the Tapad outside restaurant with its massive windows.  She would have immediately have spotted her Mum and Dad and the rest of her adult friends ....  and she would have YELLED them.

Kate would have heard.  A mother is tuned into her childrens cries.  And I easily heard my kids when they yelled us from the house when we were at the end of our 50 metre garden chatting over the bottom fence.

Madeleine is NO quiet little thing.  She is fairly dainty, but does she ever have a good voice !  They would have heard her, almost without doubt.  And someone would have noticed her.

Also, sorry to repeat it, but would a little girl having struggled to open a patio door, then in her (?)panic, have struggled to close it?

Nah, not in my opinion anyway.

So she would have been heard and seen had she come out.  Had she stayed in then the movement of the curtains with the sudden light shining out along with her silhouete would have been noticed.


She was taken

[Aiofe]

Had Madeleine stepped out, then her eyes would have been drawn to the one bright spot, the Tapad outside restaurant with its massive windows.  She would have immediately have spotted her Mum and Dad and the rest of her adult friends ....  and she would have YELLED them.

Kate would have heard.  A mother is tuned into her childrens cries.  And I easily heard my kids when they yelled us from the house when we were at the end of our 50 metre garden chatting over the bottom fence.

Madeleine is NO quiet little thing.  She is fairly dainty, but does she ever have a good voice !  They would have heard her, almost without doubt.  And someone would have noticed her.

Also, sorry to repeat it, but would a little girl having struggled to open a patio door, then in her (?)panic, have struggled to close it?

Nah, not in my opinion anyway.

So she would have been heard and seen had she come out.  Had she stayed in then the movement of the curtains with the sudden light shining out along with her silhouete would have been noticed.


She was taken

Woke and wandered is unlikely, but not disproven.

[Carew]

Quite right.  And they wouldn't have been anyhow, because it was standard practice at Pontins /Butlins and at hotels to listen check every half hour.

THe Mccanns checking arrangements far exceeded that.  They VISUALLY checked every half hour and Matt also listening checkedm but that was extra to the listening checks and not instead of one of them


The Mccanns made a mistake, a very understandable one cos they were like in their back garden and only 50 crow flies metres away. 

But then they behaved in an examplorary manner visually checking every half an hour.  Better than thousands, nay millions, of peoples checks around the hotels of the world.



Examplorary after the first very understandable mistake

How do you feel about the doors being left unlocked, though and about the reasons given for leaving them so?

How is this an improvement on the listening services offered commercially?

How would it be if Listening Service Supervisors were listening at empty rooms because toddlers had wandered off or "Abductors" had already walked in and made away with the child?

Why aren`t hotels/ Butlin`s etc. a target for "abductors" or child traffickers or "paedophile rings" when it is known that a listening service is offered and that children are alone?

Why risk targeting a family using such an" exemplary" superior checking service, when thousands nay millions are making do with inferior commercially offered listening services which would make it far easier for the prospective abductor ?

[sadie]

See the first answer on this thread, from the Google Maps admin - "distances are approximations only"

N

They are a damned sight nearer than any measurements by any other means.  You peeps wee going on about 200 metres and 150 metres before G Earth.

Of course GE has to cover their backs because their images are made up of small photos added together, but there aint going to be many photos added together over such a small distance as 50 metres, are there?


For all intents and purposes GE measurements are as accurate as we need,  And I suspect you know this


Why are you obfuscating?  Cant you stand the facts?

[BigFatBlonde]

Of course all professionals don't have to do this. All professionals concerned with the care of children do- Doctors, Nurses, Social Workers, Police, Teachers etc.

what a load of tosh. Nursery workers do not have to do it and it's not just children that are subject to safeguarding.

N

[BigFatBlonde]

After 5 days the local territory was familiar to them.  Most people in PdL are British or English speakers.

Without stepping outside the patio doors even, they only had to pull the curtains aside a little and the light from within would have immediately shone out with them silhouetted in that brightly lit patch.  The tapas group were a bright group.  Someone would immediately have noticed the change in the Mccann apartment.  Remember it was only about 50 metres away.

See the first answer on this thread, from the Google Maps admin - "distances are approximations only"

http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/maps/2qQF6eteanQ           


You keep posting 50 meters, I keep posting this. Simples

N