McCanns going too far?

Duke said:
Or if they get convicted of neglect.
Click to expand...

Once again do you know what neglect is?

Neglect

Neglect is the persistent lack of appropriate care of children, including love, stimulation, safety, nourishment, warmth, education and medical attention. It can have a serious effect on a child's physical, mental and emotional development.

The signs of neglect

There are occasions when nearly all parents find it difficult to cope with the many demands of caring for children. But this does not mean that their children are being neglected. Neglect involves ongoing, severe failure to meet a child's needs. Here are some signs of possible neglect:

*
if the child seems underweight and is very small for their age
*
if they are poorly clothed, with inadequate protection from the weather
*
if they are often absent from school for no apparent reason
*
if they are regularly left alone, or in charge of younger brothers or sisters.
 
There has been and still is confusion over what defines neglect. The NSPCC pointed out bqck in '98 that "There is definitional confusion over neglect, with many competing approaches, none of which appear to have received general acceptance among practitioners."

Indeed, the NSPCC state here that someone can be suffering from neglect simply by being left alone for long periods of time - irrespective of whether it was persistent or not.

NSPCC said:
How do I know if I'm being neglected?

You could be suffering from neglect if:
  • You don't have enough warm clothes or shoes
  • You don't have enough to eat and drink
  • You're left alone for a long time, or left in charge of family without adult help
  • You're forced to sleep somewhere cold or uncomfortable
  • No-one helps you when you're are ill or you've been hurt
If this is happening to you, you might think that it's your fault. It isn't. No-one has the right to neglect you.
Click to expand...
Using this definition, then the fact that the children - and by that, I mean all the children, not just the McCann's children - were neglected, and that all the parents that left kids alone during that holiday whilst they went to the Tapas Bar (I understand that the group of parents went there every night, although I'm not certain whether the children were left alone each time) were equally as guilty of negligence.
 
Duke said:
Using this definition, then the fact that the children - and by that, I mean all the children, not just the McCann's children - were neglected, and that all the parents that left kids alone during that holiday whilst they went to the Tapas Bar (I understand that the group of parents went there every night, although I'm not certain whether the children were left alone each time) were equally as guilty of negligence.
Click to expand...

I attend Child Protection seminars that are frequented by the NSPCC and I can tell you for fact that leaving your kids in a room while you eat in a Tapas bar and regulary call on them is not neglect.
Neither is it treated as a 'long time'.

Absolutely no-one would be cautioned with neglect for doing what the McCanns did (at the moment).
Now taking my job hat off and putting my Daddy's hat on I would like to see laws that stop parents from doing that type of thing.
 
dmpoole said:
Once again do you know what neglect is?

Neglect

Neglect is the persistent lack of appropriate care of children, including love, stimulation, safety, nourishment, warmth, education and medical attention. It can have a serious effect on a child's physical, mental and emotional development.

The signs of neglect

There are occasions when nearly all parents find it difficult to cope with the many demands of caring for children. But this does not mean that their children are being neglected. Neglect involves ongoing, severe failure to meet a child's needs. Here are some signs of possible neglect:

*
if the child seems underweight and is very small for their age
*
if they are poorly clothed, with inadequate protection from the weather
*
if they are often absent from school for no apparent reason
*
if they are regularly left alone, or in charge of younger brothers or sisters.
Click to expand...

So based on the definition they were not neglectful.

There was a time when people were "stealing" cars but not be charged with it because of the way they definition of theft was written, so along came the offence of "taking without the owners consent"

The point I am making is that just because what they did does not meet the definition of neglect in my eyes does not mean they were not neglectful.
 
Slinwagh said:
She is missing yes, that does not mean it was a third party.
Click to expand...

I would have thought their statements saying it wasn't them, the witness reports saying the parents were at the restaurant with friends the majority of the time (i.e. no time to expertly hide the body etc), as far as I know no evidence that they were violent people likely to kill their daughter, all of this and i'm sure much more points to the girl being taken by a 3rd party.
 
yak.h'cir said:
I would have thought their statements saying it wasn't them, the witness reports saying the parents were at the restaurant with friends the majority of the time (i.e. no time to expertly hide the body etc), as far as I know no evidence that they were violent people likely to kill their daughter, all of this and i'm sure much more points to the girl being taken by a 3rd party.
Click to expand...

Publicly they said were not involved yet when asked directly if she was involved during her interview with the Police Kate McCann refused to answer the question.

There are also sevral windows of oppurtunity based on the timeline of events given by the McCanns and their party of friends

Jane Tanner the witness and friend who says she saw a man carrying a "child" originally said she saw a man carrying something that could have been a child. Over time her description of this man changed in both height, build and hair style.

The original drawing was only commisioned many months after the child went missing, why not straight away? Also how when the original drawing showed a man from behind as per Jane Tanner's original description did his face suddenly appear in later drawings?
 
Slinwagh said:
Publicly they said were not involved yet when asked directly if she was involved during her interview with the Police Kate McCann refused to answer the question.
Click to expand...

Put yourself in their shoes for a second and assume you're totally innocent and have had your little girl kidnapped from you, how would you react if you were asked if it was you. I know i'd be furious and wouldn't dignify the question with an answer.

Slinwagh said:
There are also sevral windows of oppurtunity based on the timeline of events given by the McCanns and their party of friends
Click to expand...

Long enough to hide a child so well that she's never found? I know it's possible I'm just saying it sounds unlikely.

I'm not trying to say that there is no way the parents could possibly have been involved, just that it's far more likely that someone else took her.

For the parents to have pulled this off so perfectly, to have hidden the body so well that even after a massive search and world wide campaign no one has found her it would have to have been extremely well planned in advance. If they wanted her dead that much they could have just drowned her in the sea and said they thought she was just paddling and the next thing they knew she was gone. It would have been put down as a tragic accident and they'd have sympathy from everyone. There would have been no need to arrange an elaborate abduction during their meal/hiding the body.

Slinwagh said:
Jane Tanner the witness and friend who says she saw a man carrying a "child" originally said she saw a man carrying something that could have been a child. Over time her description of this man changed in both height, build and hair style.

The original drawing was only commisioned many months after the child went missing, why not straight away? Also how when the original drawing showed a man from behind as per Jane Tanner's original description did his face suddenly appear in later drawings?
Click to expand...

No idea about any of this stuff, just sounds like something to do with the police rather then the parents + a bit like the beginnings of a crazy conspiracy theory to be honest.
 
Slinwagh said:
Publicly they said were not involved yet when asked directly if she was involved during her interview with the Police Kate McCann refused to answer the question.
Click to expand...

Don't you think its more likely they were told what to do by a legal team who know how the Portugeuse legal system works?
They publicly said they were innocent so don't you think thats what happened?
I'm also pretty sure that when they were made Aguidos (sp!) they didn't have to say anything.
 
Put yourself in their shoes for a second and assume you're totally innocent and have had your little girl kidnapped from you, how would you react if you were asked if it was you. I know i'd be furious and wouldn't dignify the question with an answer.
Click to expand...
i'd be as honest as possible if i were innocent and didnt have anything to hide.
surely you would want to help the police in anyway you can not sit quiet through 40 odd questions
 
arknor said:
i'd be as honest as possible if i were innocent and didnt have anything to hide.
surely you would want to help the police in anyway you can not sit quiet through 40 odd questions
Click to expand...

Well either way I don't think there is a definitive right or wrong answer on this. I just know that if I was in their place I'd have been very angry about being accused and would be thinking the police were wasting their time by asking those questions so would be even more annoyed.

The old nothing to hide so no problem line often gets trotted out, usually with regards to cctv, monitoring phone calls, id cards and dna databases. It has some merit but i'm sure you can see why just because you don't have anything to hide doesn't mean you're not going to be annoyed.

Regardless it wouldn't have slowed down the investigation, if the police seriously suspected the parents as criminals I don't think them saying that they didn't do it would hold much sway, "oh well i thought they murdered their own daughter but then the mother said she didn't do it so I guess that's that".
 
dmpoole said:
Don't you think its more likely they were told what to do by a legal team who know how the Portugeuse legal system works?
They publicly said they were innocent so don't you think thats what happened?
I'm also pretty sure that when they were made Aguidos (sp!) they didn't have to say anything.
Click to expand...

It was probably down to legal advice but why would you not deny being involved when you are interviewed, it does not make sense to me.
 
Slinwagh said:
It was probably down to legal advice but why would you not deny being involved when you are interviewed, it does not make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Because they were probably told not to.
They denied before and after the interview countless times so what she did in the room must have been legal advice and she sat there biting her lip.
 
dmpoole said:
I attend Child Protection seminars that are frequented by the NSPCC and I can tell you for fact that leaving your kids in a room while you eat in a Tapas bar and regulary call on them is not neglect.
Neither is it treated as a 'long time'.

Absolutely no-one would be cautioned with neglect for doing what the McCanns did (at the moment).
Now taking my job hat off and putting my Daddy's hat on I would like to see laws that stop parents from doing that type of thing.
Click to expand...
So what do you 'call' what they did then? Just irresponsible?


(not quite sure why my name was quoted instead of GarethDW's previous page)
 
Duke said:
So what do you 'call' what they did then? Just irresponsible?
Click to expand...

Unfortunate.
These were good parents who were on holiday and decided to use their own listening service like 1000s and 1000s of other parents do.
If they did indeed listen in every 30 mins they did a lot more than any listening service would do.
It was a very unfortunate incident but in no way are they neglectful in a cruelty to children NSPCC way.
They have got to live with their decision for the rest of their lives while keyboard warriors judge them.
 
I think they were in the wrong and negligent. Same as lots and lots of other parents in the UK as well.

I was reading the other day how a 5 year old dialed 999 and called the fire brigade because his daddy nipped to the shops and his microwave started smoking. There is no way my parents would have left me in the house on my own when I was five.

It's only negligence when something goes wrong.
 
dmpoole said:
Unfortunate.
These were good parents who were on holiday and decided to use their own listening service like 1000s and 1000s of other parents do.
If they did indeed listen in every 30 mins they did a lot more than any listening service would do.
It was a very unfortunate incident but in no way are they neglectful in a cruelty to children NSPCC way.
They have got to live with their decision for the rest of their lives while keyboard warriors judge them.
Click to expand...

Unfortunate, good parents, in light of what has happened that is a remarkable thing to say!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom