Madeline dead?

Megahurtz400 · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:12

TBH, I think its best that the case is closed, as if it isnt she could fall victim to so many appaling things during her lifetime if she is never found.

Abuse me if you will but i can think of only one better way of this to end (or have ended), and that is the obvious her being found, which the chances of that happening are slim to none

As much as the parents are to blame i think they do need some respect as theyre daughter is missing/dead.

the-void · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:13

iCraig said:
Yes it does, the reason that woman was charged was because she deliberately left her children in an area of danger. The A69 to be precise.

The Mcannes didn't deliberately leave their kids in an area of danger, on the contary they left them somewhere relatively secure.

Still shouldn't of been left alone at all, I agree, but I doubt we'll see them punished further, and I can understand why not.

being charged with abandonment has nothing to do with roads.

an unlocked hotel room or even a locked hotel room is not a secure area.

iCraig · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:14

the-void said:
being charged with abandonment has nothing to do with roads.

But that's the reason that woman was fined. Because she left her children in a dangerous area for no reason.

the-void said:
an unlocked hotel room or even a locked hotel room is not a secure area.

It is relatively secure area, no?

the-void · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:15

iCraig said:
But that's the reason that woman was fined. Because she left her children in a dangerous area for no reason.

Being left by a road is not a pre-requisite for being charged with abandonment.

iCraig said:
It is relatively secure area, no?

Are you for real?

[TW]Fox · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:16

iCraig said:
It is relatively secure area, no?

In what way is an unlocked room in a building to which the public have access 'a relatively secure area'?

nealw · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:16

iCraig said:
Which is?

see above posts RE: woman abandoning child at roadside, and woman leaving child LOCKED in the house

div0 said:
fact?!? you know something we don't?

oops, no!

scorza · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:16

Dolph said:
Most appropriately, found guilty of neglect/abandonment then given an absolute discharge or community service.

We should NOT ignore their actions simply because they had a terrible consequence, as society has a responsibilty to ensure children are protected responsibly by their parents, not left alone because they interfere with their parents social lives.

Geez - reading this makes my blood boil. It is not neglect to leave your kids asleep while you go across the road and check on them every 30 minutes, and to actually suggest that as well as about the worst thing that could happen actually happening, they should be punished to the full extent of the law? Would justice really be served by this? Should compassion and common sense really have no place in law? You cannot be with and protect your kids 100% of the time.

Why are people always so quick to blame the parents but are prepared to stick up for paedo scum? :rolleyes:

iCraig · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:17

the-void said:
Are you for real?

Look, you show me an article about a woman that was punished with a £2000 fine for leaving her kids.

All I've pointed out is that the scenario is different and not comparable enough to project that punishment to the Mcannes. Mostly because of the conditions of both abandonments.

Also, I didn't say the hotel was a safehouse or anything, but it IS relatively secure.

the-void · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:18

scorza said:
Why are people always so quick to blame the parents but are prepared to stick up for paedo scum?

Who is sticking up for paedophile scum?

Dolph · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:18

scorza said:
Why are people always so quick to blame the parents but are prepared to stick up for paedo scum?

I'd quite happily see all manner of horrible things perptrated on the person who took Maddy, but that doesn't change the fact that the parents created the window of opportunity for her abduction with irresponsible behaviour.

If they had looked after their child, would this have happened? Possibly, but probably not.

^TANK^ · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:19

Has anyone been listening to the radio i think i heard they have found a body :confused:

not 100% sure just got out of the car and heard the end of the news on the radio.

[TW]Fox · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:19

iCraig said:
Also, I didn't say the hotel was a safehouse or anything, but it IS relatively secure.

In what way is an unlocked room in a building to which the public have access 'a relatively secure'?

iCraig · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:19

[TW]Fox said:
In what way is an unlocked room in a building to which the public have access 'a relatively secure area'?

Was the room definately unlocked?

Any sort of building is relatively secure. Would you rather sleep in the street or in a hotel room? What's safer for a child to stay in, bus shelter or hotel room? :confused:

I'm not saying it's *secure*, I'm saying it's relatively secure for what it is.

Steedie · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:20

^TANK^ said:
Has anyone been listening to the radio i think i heard they have found a body not 100% sure just got out of the car and heard the end of the news on the radio.

.......

I hope you misheard

sam83uk · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:20

Theres something really dodgy about her parents, i seen the same 'dodgyness' on ian huntley when i first seen him on the news being questioned. They just didnt seem really upset in the interviews they gave id i was a parent and i lost my daughter i probs wouldnt be able to face anyone and just hide away.

On the subject of when she was taken. What was the point in going out to lunch if they planned on going to see madeline every 30 minutes. It was hardly going to be a romantic 'just the two of us' night out, so why not just go somewhere child friendly.

the-void · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:20

iCraig said:
Look, you show me an article about a woman that was punished with a £2000 fine for leaving her kids.

All I've pointed out is that the scenario is different and not comparable enough to project that punishment to the Mcannes. Mostly because of the conditions of both abandonments.

Also, I didn't say the hotel was a safehouse or anything, but it IS relatively secure.

And all I said is that it is ILLEGAL to abandon your children. I am not a court of law, and nor are you a judge. All I ask is they are tried in a court of law on Abandonment charges. Let the court decide.

It MAY be illegal what they have done. You cannot say it is not illegal on the premise of what you consider the relatively security of an unlocked public hotel room (hardly secure in my opinion). And how do you know they checked every 30 minutes. For all you know they might not have checked at all.

Abandonment is not just about if the children are in a building or outside.

^TANK^ · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:21

Steedie said:
.......

I hope you misheard

Me too tried looking for a link on the net nothing yet.

merlin · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:22

You can create a window of opportunity for your child to be ran over simply by letting them outside to play with their friends.

The McCanns were foolish and probably selfish, but negligent - hmm, not so sure about that personally.

Wasn't the bedroom window closed but it had louvres and those louvres were removed by the person(s) involved? I thought someone took the girl by gaining access to a window? Or maybe that was just hearsay.

the-void · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:24

merlin said:
You can create a window of opportunity for your child to be ran over simply by letting them outside to play with their friends.

And you would let 2 and 3 year olds play near the road would you? lets keep in mind the age of these children.

snazzy_dazzy · 13 Jun 2007 at 16:25

merlin said:
You can create a window of opportunity for your child to be ran over simply by letting them outside to play with their friends.

The McCanns were foolish and probably selfish, but negligent - hmm, not so sure about that personally.

Wasn't the bedroom window closed but it had louvres and those louvres were removed by the person(s) involved? I thought someone took the girl by gaining access to a window? Or maybe that was just hearsay.

your right, they came through the window so it was GOING to happen. No question about it.

They were just unlucky not to be there. The people responsible obviously wanted her in particular..