Loving parents who have covered up the accidental death of a child

[stephen25000]

Stephen Has Spoken: The McCanns are not real parents, nor loving.  END OF.

Parents yes.

Good parents. NO.

and do you really think I am by myself in this view ?

[Alfred R Jones]

Parents yes.

Good parents. NO.

and do you really think I am by myself in this view ?

The word under discussion was "loving" not "good".  What makes you think I think you're alone on this?  Slagging off the McCanns is now officially a national pastime, didn't you know?

[Lace]

Ah, that was the anticipated response.

FYI, the mccanns did this on 5 successive nights, and for all we know at other times as well, and would have continued to do so. The rank stupidity of leaving young children unattended can be seen in recent headlines, including some examples posted on here. Nothing you can say will take away the truth,  for the mccanns, socializing first, children second.

END OF.

Well Social Services had better take all the McCann's friends children off them hadn't they,  or are they not counted in the nasty horrible uncaring parents?

As I have said before Stephen,   a stupid decision does not mean the McCann's are not loving caring parents, if they weren't they wouldn't have been checking on them and they would certainly have not bothered to book the OC for the week to be close to the apartment.    Also you are forgetting that the McCann's had baby sitters when they went out at home,   if they were uncaring parents who normally left their children why have baby sitters at home?

[faithlilly]

Well Social Services had better take all the McCann's friends children off them hadn't they,  or are they not counted in the nasty horrible uncaring parents?

As I have said before Stephen,   a stupid decision does not mean the McCann's are not loving caring parents, if they weren't they wouldn't have been checking on them and they would certainly have not bothered to book the OC for the week to be close to the apartment.    Also you are forgetting that the McCann's had baby sitters when they went out at home,   if they were uncaring parents who normally left their children why have baby sitters at home?

And if the children had died in a fire between the half hourly checks ?

[Lace]

And if the children had died in a fire between the half hourly checks ?

What are you trying to say?  That I think it was ok to leave the children?  Well I don't I am saying they made a bad decision,  but that doesn't mean they weren't loving,  caring parents.

If the children had died in a blaze,  it still would have been because they made a stupid reckless decision but there would still be no reason to say they were not loving, caring parents.

Before you bring up the Phillpott's,  they STARTED the fire,  so I would not call them loving and caring.

[faithlilly]

What are you trying to say?  That I think it was ok to leave the children?  Well I don't I am saying they made a bad decision,  but that doesn't mean they weren't loving,  caring parents.

If the children had died in a blaze,  it still would have been because they made a stupid reckless decision but there would still be no reason to say they were not loving, caring parents.

Before you bring up the Phillpott's,  they STARTED the fire,  so I would not call them loving and caring.

Neither couple wanted the deaths of their children but due to their reckless behavior  that's what happened.

[Alfred R Jones]

Neither couple wanted the deaths of their children but due to their reckless behavior  that's what happened.

Another one who can't see the difference between an accident and a deliberate act.

[Alfred R Jones]

Apparently there are many examples of seemingly loving parents who have covered up the tragic accidental death of a child, however after several pages of this thread, and contributions from the member who made the allegation in the first place we've yet to see any real examples... how strange... &%+((£

[Vicky]

Don't think I have ever heard of such a case.

Mind, the very nature of the question would mean that people wouldn't know about it..surely? If its been covered up, then people wouldn't know about it.

[Alfred R Jones]

Don't think I have ever heard of such a case.

Mind, the very nature of the question would mean that people wouldn't know about it..surely? If its been covered up, then people wouldn't know about it.

The forum was reliably informed that there were many such cases, and as it is forum etiquette to back up claims with cites and examples, I'm looking forward to reading them when they eventually materialize...

[Eleanor]

Don't think I have ever heard of such a case.

Mind, the very nature of the question would mean that people wouldn't know about it..surely? If its been covered up, then people wouldn't know about it.

Exactly.

[Vicky]

The forum was reliably informed that there were many such cases, and as it is forum etiquette to back up claims with cites and examples, I'm looking forward to reading them when they eventually materialize...

Sorry I only started reading this forum again last night, not up to date on what had been claimed here and there :p

[Alfred R Jones]

Exactly.

Not quite exactly - there may well be cover-ups that we don't know about but a claim has been made that there are cover-ups that presumably ARE known about, otherwise the claim could not have been legitimately made.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Oh dear.  You obviously don't understand the difference between an accident and a deliberate act of arson.  Never mind.

Oh I understand perfectly. I also understand your attempt to try and wriggle out of accepting that parents who are involved in their childs 'accident' would try and cover it up and the A&E and Social services will quite happily confirm this,however to protect children they don't name names.

The 'accident' concerning the Philpots was they didn't mean to kill the children, they wanted to make Mick out a hero to save them but the plan went wrong. That was their case- they did not deliberatly set out to kill the children- just like  a child could get hold of mummies little helpers while they were out drinking as an example or the child got out of an unlocked apartment and was snatched by a paedophile or was found dead due to banging her head while the parents were out drinking... but they were still loving parents. They had to cover it up to protect their reputations kind of thing...Or maybe the mother snapped and did what alot of people do, and accidentally killed their child by losing their temper and harming the child...

[Alfred R Jones]

Oh I understand perfectly. I also understand your attempt to try and wriggle out of accepting that parents who are involved in their childs 'accident' would try and cover it up and the A&E and Social services will quite happily confirm this,however to protect children they don't name names.

The 'accident' concerning the Philpots was they didn't mean to kill the children, they wanted to make Mick out a hero to save them but the plan went wrong. That was their case- they did not deliberatly set out to kill the children- just like  a child could get hold of mummies little helpers while they were out drinking as an example or the child got out of an unlocked apartment and was snatched by a paedophile or was found dead due to banging her head while the parents were out drinking... but they were still loving parents. They had to cover it up to protect their reputations kind of thing...Or maybe the mother snapped and did what alot of people do, and accidentally killed their child by losing their temper and harming the child...

If you seriously believe that leaving three children asleep in bed alone, and checking on them at half hourly intervals is the same thing as deliberately setting fire to a house in which your children are asleep then I'm sorry but there is no possible hope for you..  Just answer me this one final question: would you describe the deaths of the Philpott children as "a tragic accident"?