Did leaving three very young children alone constitute responsible parenting?

[Angelo222]

A well lit marquee, with huge picture windows, Angelo

I believe Martin Brunt put that fallacy to bed once and for all.

[Redblossom]

I believe Martin Brunt put that fallacy to bed once and for all.

Certainy did and he wasnt the only only one.....no visual at all, and thats EVEN if they were looking!!! Tara

[Mr Gray]

Certainy did and he wasnt the only only one.....no visual at all, and thats EVEN if they were looking!!! Tara

 not much time now but I would say that in the context of the holiday it was responsible parenting.

[stephen25000]

Kate and Gerry McCann did not commit one mistake - they repeated their deliberate decision night after night.  And they should both, as doctors, but especially Kate as a GP,  have known that children should not be left alone out of sight and hearing.  And if Kate had known of any parents on her GP's register doing this she would have been expected to report it to the authorities and attend subsequent case conferences.  This is why I find their behaviour particularly inexplicable and unforgivable.  And Madeleine is the victim, no-one else.

Precisely.   

[sadie]

I believe Martin Brunt put that fallacy to bed once and for all.

Angelo.

The difference between you and me, is that I have been there and seen.

[sadie]

But a barrister reassured they were well within the bounds of responsible parenting.....


Lol

Like to see him in court arguing that when a child came to harm! Whilst they were out down the road and left their front and back doors unlocked

 

A new myth here then.  They now left their front door unlocked, did they?  Maybe it wasn't double locked, but it certainly needed a key to get in

Please STOP creating myths.

[sadie]

BUMPED


from: CPN on February 02, 2014, 11:47:18 PM

Kate and Gerry McCann did not commit one mistake - they repeated their deliberate decision night after night.  And they should both, as doctors, but especially Kate as a GP,  have known that children should not be left alone out of sight and hearing.  And if Kate had known of any parents on her GP's register doing this she would have been expected to report it to the authorities and attend subsequent case conferences.  This is why I find their behaviour particularly inexplicable and unforgivable.  And Madeleine is the victim, no-one else.
CPN

As you well know, Social Services (have I got the right department?) investigated them and found them good parents. 
They have done nothing illegal.
They followed and improved on an age old procedure of checking every 30 minutes.  The recognised old procedure was simply a listening method.  The Mccanns method involved a visual check every 30 minutes + another check.
The PJ found nothing illegal about what they had done, where they were eating realtive to the children.
The parents were in the grounds of the hotel within sight and hearing of them had they pulled the patio door open.
Once on the patio, Madeleine would immediately see her Mum and Dad and friends ... and yell.
Amaral, himself said that no-one would have gone in by the patio door as it was too close and over looked by the parents/ Tapas group friends, only 50 metres away

[CPN]

But a barrister reassured they were well within the bounds of responsible parenting.....


Lol

Like to see him in court arguing that when a child came to harm! Whilst they were out down the road and left their front and back doors unlocked

 

Barristers are paid to represent their clients and put their clients' point of view in a positive way

[Benice]

Barristers are paid to represent their clients and put their clients' point of view in a positive way

Are they allowed to lie to their clients and mislead them about the law? 

What benefit would that be to their clients?

[CPN]

CPN

As you well know, Social Services (have I got the right department?) investigated them and found them good parents. 
They have done nothing illegal.
They followed and improved on an age old procedure of checking every 30 minutes.  The recognised old procedure was simply a listening method.  The Mccanns method involved a visual check every 30 minutes + another check.
The PJ found nothing illegal about what they had done, where they were eating realtive to the children.
The parents were in the grounds of the hotel within sight and hearing of them had they pulled the patio door open.
Once on the patio, Madeleine would immediately see her Mum and Dad and friends ... and yell.
Amaral, himself said that no-one would have gone in by the patio door as it was too close and over looked by the parents/ Tapas group friends, only 50 metres away

Where can you point to any statement by Social Services that they "found them good parents"? Social Services are not allowed to comment on the families they investigate and you will always only ever hear what the parents want to say.   You do not know and nor do I, what went on between the Social Services and the McCanns.   Nor do you know whether any action apart from prosecution was taken.

Action in Social Services is not only based on "legality"; it is based on the best interests of the child(ren).  In any case it can well be argued that what the McCanns did was not legal in the UK.   Had it been discovered in the Local Authorities I worked for, action would certainly have been taken - not necessarily prosecution, as I have explained time and again, but certainly some action

The parents were not within sight and hearing, or nothing would have happened, would it?

What other parents do is up to them; the consequences will also be up to them. Each parent makes their own decision, so depending on what others do is irrelevant.  The safety of your children depends upon YOU.   But doctors, above all, should know the dangers to young children left alone for the reasons I gave earlier

[CPN]

Are they allowed to lie to their clients and mislead them about the law? 

What benefit would that be to their clients?

 

It would get them (the clients) off further action.  It is done all the time as reports in the papers show.   Child Protection Officers are, by definition, paid to represent the interests of the child(ren)  Everyone I have spoken to who has worked / works in Children's Social Services (plus some family lawyers) were / are appalled at what happened and the sympathy is always with Madeleine and the twins

[colombosstogey]

Certainy did and he wasnt the only only one.....no visual at all, and thats EVEN if they were looking!!! Tara

Stupid isnt it, how can you have visual if your sat in a bar chatting with plastic screening behind you, and oh yeh a bl&&dy wall on the outside of the apartments lol. Unless of course they are SUPERMAN...with x ray eyes.

[Estuarine]

At the risk of repeating myself and being boring the extract below is from  the NSPCC booklet " Home Alone"
•
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.

Now which pundit wants to say the NSPCC are talking bollocks? Of course we could start an debate about how many angels can dance on a pin head.................................

[CPN]

At the risk of repeating myself and being boring the extract below is from  the NSPCC booklet " Home Alone"
•
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.

Now which pundit wants to say the NSPCC are talking bollocks? Of course we could start an debate about how many angels can dance on a pin head.................................

These are the government guidelines also, Estuarine.  And it is because the training of GPs would include lectures and discussion on the care of young children including these guidelines, let alone the experience of a GP with regard to children on her patients list attending A&E, that it cannot be argued that they did not know these guidelines (let alone common sense and basic parenting )

[Redblossom]

A new myth here then.  They now left their front door unlocked, did they?  Maybe it wasn't double locked, but it certainly needed a key to get in

Please STOP creating myths.

What myth am I creating then? Its taken from statements.(GM 10 May "unlikely to be locked"and KM 6 Sept "not locked")

The whole point if you have read the burglery thread from which this thread was spun, was in the context  of security...and that the others locked both front and back doors.....its not only needing a key to get in, its also to make sure the kids could not get out!

So please STOP making accusations,thank you