Madeleine case used in Court as reason not to jail absent mother.

[Redblossom]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539093/Madeleine-McCanns-parents-guilty-child-neglect-says-lawyer-bizarre-courtroom-speech.html  Redblossom

 

Thanks CPN they must have read my mind lol

[colombosstogey]

What about this case...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/227553/Police-caution-mum-for-leaving-son-14-to-mind-three-year-old-brother

Its bizarre, i thought you could leave legally a child at 13. I used to baby sit a lot at 14.

[Carana]

Thinking more about what is bothering me most about this article, icabod - one among many negative articles about the McCanns - it is the journalist's implication that the McCann scenario is being used as a precedent.

But he carefully avoids any reference  to what the verdict was based on. It may have had nothing to  do with the McCann case at all.

I agree with your previous comments on this.

There is a hint of what may have helped her avoid a custodial sentence, though.

Probation officer Graham Craig said the little boy, an only child, was "extremely vulnerable" because of his Asperger's syndrome.

Mr Craig said: "His mother accepts full responsibility and knows that a potentially catastrophic situation could have developed at home while she was out.

"She accepts making a series of poor decisions and that alcohol was a factor."

Gareth Morgan, defending, asked the magistrates not to impose a custodial sentence saying the woman had not touched a drop of alcohol since the night she left her son alone last October 30.

He said: "The parents of Madeleine McCann were guilty of child neglect for leaving their little girl much longer than my client.

"They were never prosecuted for it.

"The mother in this case is ashamed and remorseful at putting her young child at risk in the way she did."


I presume that the child welfare board would have weighed up the pros and cons of the potential effects of separating the child from his mother. Beyond that she admitted responsibility and demonstrated her willingness to improve by not having touched alcohol since the events of that night.

The lawyer's comment might have been more of a throwaway remark that the tabloids latched onto. Any opportunity to use "Madeleine" as a key word generates more revenue.

[Redblossom]

The lawyer's comment might have been more of a throwaway remark that the tabloids latched onto. Any opportunity to use "Madeleine" as a key word generates more revenue.

how does it do that? If papers are free to read online? or do you think people see "Maddie" on the front pages and buy the paper even if its not their regular...and what nearly seven years later, dont thnk so somehow

[Carana]

What about this case...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/227553/Police-caution-mum-for-leaving-son-14-to-mind-three-year-old-brother

Its bizarre, i thought you could leave legally a child at 13. I used to baby sit a lot at 14.

I found that strange as well. Cautioned for an act of cruelty???

I suppose it might depend on the teenager in question. Some are more responsible at that age than others.

[Carana]

how does it do that? If papers are free to read online? or do you think people see "Maddie" on the front pages and buy the paper even if its not their regular...and what nearly seven years later, dont thnk so somehow

I'm not sure how many "papers" read online. ;)

Seriously, I'd agree that the key word may generate less revenue than several years ago, but there is no doubt renewed interest recently due to other news about the case.

[Redblossom]

I'm not sure how many "papers" read online. ;)

Seriously, I'd agree that the key word may generate less revenue than several years ago, but there is no doubt renewed interest recently due to other news about the case.

Ha ha very funy carana lol

Still would like to know how more money is made by these stories.....this far long gone...do you seriously think there are many readers who MUST buy a paper because "Maddie" is in the front page? If they dont already regularly buy that paper? Do you seriously thnk most of the populatin are still interested? Like 6 yrs back? i dont think so, if anythng most are probabiy sick to the back teeth with any regular headlines aboutt one child for so long

[Carana]

Ha ha very funy carana lol

Still would like to know how more money is made by these stories.....this far long gone...do you seriously think there are many readers who MUST buy a paper because "Maddie" is in the front page? If they dont already regularly buy that paper? Do you seriously thnk most of the populatin are still interested? Like 6 yrs back? i dont think so, if anythng most are probabiy sick to the back teeth with any regular headlines aboutt one child for so long

I'm hunting for an oldish article that I found fascinating and I think you might find it interesting as well. I'll post it if and when I find it.

Yes, I do think that even people who may have more or less forgotten about the case might be tempted to buy a paper out of curiosity in the event of an eventual "breakthrough".

Aside from the written press, the explosion of the Internet meant that key words were THE thing to generate revenue for the online press. The basic idea was that including popular key words into articles (or metatags) would improve traffic. If you improve traffic, you increase the amount of people viewing online ads. An increased audience viewing online ads improved revenue.

[Carana]

There's a whole industry built around key words and optimisation.

You create your ads

You create ads and choose keywords, which are words or phrases related to your business. Get keyword ideas
Your ads appear on Google

When people search on Google using one of your keywords, your ad may appear next to the search results. Now you're advertising to an audience that's already interested in you.
You attract customers

People can simply click on your ad to make a purchase or learn more about you.

Google: Google adwords.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The lawyer's comment might have been more of a throwaway remark that the tabloids latched onto. Any opportunity to use "Madeleine" as a key word generates more revenue.

Sounds like it. No case could be based upon a so-called argument like this, and therefore no lawyer worth his salt would attempt to build a case around it.

Notice how the papers (links above) describe the lawyer's speech as 'bizarre'.

That's exactly what it  is.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Ha ha very funy carana lol

Still would like to know how more money is made by these stories.....this far long gone...do you seriously think there are many readers who MUST buy a paper because "Maddie" is in the front page? If they dont already regularly buy that paper? Do you seriously thnk most of the populatin are still interested? Like 6 yrs back? i dont think so, if anythng most are probabiy sick to the back teeth with any regular headlines aboutt one child for so long

So why turn the story into one about Madeleine McCann when it had absolutely nothing to do with the McCann case?

[Redblossom]

I'm hunting for an oldish article that I found fascinating and I think you might find it interesting as well. I'll post it if and when I find it.

Yes, I do think that even people who may have more or less forgotten about the case might be tempted to buy a paper out of curiosity in the event of an eventual "breakthrough".

Aside from the written press, the explosion of the Internet meant that key words were THE thing to generate revenue for the online press. The basic idea was that including popular key words into articles (or metatags) would improve traffic. If you improve traffic, you increase the amount of people viewing online ads. An increased audience viewing online ads improved revenue.

But that occurs for everything, not just the Maddie case, Im sure the Kardashians or Big Brother are making loads of money for the papers, the Maddie case, not IMO....there has to be a very small minority of people clicking! it just is so not the same as in 2007 when it was an everyday unfolding story.....these days we have stupid headlines like Maddie found in Ireland....which has followed umpteen ridiculous and vacuous articles, as I said, majority of jo bloggs are uninterested and/or have been made immune

[Redblossom]

So why turn the story into one about Madeleine McCann when it had absolutely nothing to do with the McCann case?

Err, because it did?...the lawyers argument? they didnt make it up....though they had a choice whether to print it

[jassi]

Err, because it did?...the lawyers argument? they didnt make it up....though they had a choice whether to print it

I bet they couldn't resist. Because it was said in court, they are free to report it without any danger of a visit from one of CR's minions.

[Redblossom]

I bet they couldn't resist. Because it was said in court, they are free to report it without any danger of a visit from one of CR's minions.

And why couldnt they resist, such a hurtful and unhelpful coverage, untrue to form


 >@@(*&)