McCanns going too far?

scorza said:
They were 50 yards away and checked on the kids every 30 minutes. How many times do I need to say that ffs
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. If I had a child and went twenty yards away out up to the end of the street, i'd be in the wrong.

And also, thirty minutes isn't often enough either.
 
scorza said:
No there isn't. It is not neglect to be 50 yards away from your sleeping children and checking on them every 30 minutes.
Click to expand...
You might want to go and tell the CPS that they're wasting their time and money investigating whether the McCanns are guilty of neglect under the 1933 Young Person's Act.

I'm sure they'll be grateful for you explaining why they're wrong and you're right.
[size=-1][/size]
 
GarethDW said:
You might want to go and tell the CPS that they're wasting their time and money investigating whether the McCanns are guilty of neglect under the 1933 Young Person's Act.

I'm sure they'll be grateful for you explaining why they're wrong and you're right.
[size=-1][/size]
Click to expand...

Neglect is the persistent lack of appropriate care for children. If they are charged with anything then it will be for things other than this incident which we don't know about.
 
scorza said:
No there isn't. It is not neglect to be 50 yards away from your sleeping children and checking on them every 30 minutes.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that !!

Lets not beat around the bush here they went out on the lash, leaving 3 children alone, in a foreign country and unsupervised, and yes I am aware I keep saying this before anyone points it out!

1. In all likelihood would this have happened if the children were in the same apartment as the parents?

2. By leaving the children did the parents create the opportunity for the child to be taken.


Answer those two questions honestly and I think it is safe to draw the conclusion that the parents are part responsible for the current situation and thus neglectful.
 
scorza said:
Neglect is the persistent lack of appropriate care for children. If they are charged with anything then it will be for things other than this incident which we don't know about.
Click to expand...

i don't think persistent is relavent at all, the Oxford english dictionary fdefinition is as follows:

• verb 1 fail to give proper care or attention to. 2 fail to do something.

• noun 1 the state of being neglected. 2 the action of neglecting.
Click to expand...

The Mcanns meet the first definition and i think it is safe to say that they were neglectful.
 
Slinwagh said:
Do you really believe that !!

Lets not beat around the bush here they went out on the lash, leaving 3 children alone, in a foreign country and unsupervised, and yes I am aware I keep saying this before anyone points it out!

1. In all likelihood would this have happened if the children were in the same apartment as the parents?

2. By leaving the children did the parents create the opportunity for the child to be taken.


Answer those two questions honestly and I think it is safe to draw the conclusion that the parents are part responsible for the current situation and thus neglectful.
Click to expand...

Nice use of weasel words there - on the lash. They went to a restaurant, hardly what the use of your phrase implies.

Clearly if they'd had stayed in then the chances of the abduction are greatly reduced. However whats the point of going after the parents now? How would pretending that its all the parents fault help Maddy and serve justice?
 
scorza said:
Nice use of weasel words there - on the lash. They went to a restaurant, hardly what the use of your phrase implies.

Clearly if they'd had stayed in then the chances of the abduction are greatly reduced. However whats the point of going after the parents now? How would pretending that its all the parents fault help Maddy and serve justice?
Click to expand...

Because they still commited an offence.

You can't just cite "compassionate reasons" as a way to dodge the law.
 
Slinwagh said:
i don't think persistent is relavent at all, the Oxford english dictionary fdefinition is as follows:



The Mcanns meet the first definition and i think it is safe to say that they were neglectful.
Click to expand...

UK law isn't based on dictionary definitions. Child neglect isn't a black and white situation.
 
scorza said:
Nice use of weasel words there - on the lash. They went to a restaurant, hardly what the use of your phrase implies.

Clearly if they'd had stayed in then the chances of the abduction are greatly reduced. However whats the point of going after the parents now? How would pretending that its all the parents fault help Maddy and serve justice?
Click to expand...

I went after the parents from the minute the story aired and was not afraid to do so.
 
Tute said:
Because they still commited an offence.

You can't just cite "compassionate reasons" as a way to dodge the law.
Click to expand...

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Even if they do get charged, which I doubt, then there needs to be a lot more evidence that than presented here or in the papers.
 
scorza said:
Neglect is the persistent lack of appropriate care for children. If they are charged with anything then it will be for things other than this incident which we don't know about.
Click to expand...
The Act in question makes no reference to neglect only being when a child is "persistently"put at risk. If a parent leaves a lighter in a child's room and the child plays with it, causing a fire, is the parent not guilty of neglect, as it only happened the once?

You don't have to be repeatedly neglectful for the consequences to be tragic - as the McCanns have discovered.
 
Slinwagh said:
I went after the parents from the minute the story aired and was not afraid to do so.
Click to expand...

Did you go after the parents of that 6 year old who was abducted from the bath? If her parents were supervising her properly the abduction wouldn't have happened. Would you be going after the parents if they weren't white, well educated and middle class?
 
scorza said:
They were 50 yards away and checked on the kids every 30 minutes. How many times do I need to say that ffs
Click to expand...
Clearly you seem to know the law better than most - perhaps I can ask how far I am allowed to be away from my children when I fancy a bit of a break and how often I need to check them? 100 yards ok? Do I need to be in the same premise?

I presume there must be some kind of line graph to quantify this for me since they must be a function of each other - perhaps I should check the good parenting guide?

Sorry mate but you are talking a load of BS - irrelevant of the distance and how often they checked it wasnt good enough otherwise their child wouldnt have disappeared/abducted.

They ultimately have to pay for their actions and the fact they paid the ulitmate price does not excuse them.

What disgusts me the most is the media machine they engineered into all this - if Blair had them onboard he would still be in power. If I was in their position, I would be sooo gutted that I would never be seen again but made sure relatives/lawyers acted on my behalf. Just doesnt make sense that they are so comfortable in leading this campaign when they are the ones that let it happen...

Two related things happened here which both demand investigation - one doesnt negate the other:

1. A girl went missing/was abducted
2. Parents left small children unattended, however long or near they were it allowed 1. to happen.

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
scorza said:
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Even if they do get charged, which I doubt, then there needs to be a lot more evidence that than presented here or in the papers.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you're saying here, scorza. I'd hope that any charges would be based on the interviews that the McCanns and other holidaymakers, as well as the hotel & restaurant employees have all given under oath.

I'm not saying that they will or won't be charged - I am, however, saying that they will be investigated.
 
scorza said:
Did you go after the parents of that 6 year old who was abducted from the bath? If her parents were supervising her properly the abduction wouldn't have happened. Would you be going after the parents if they weren't white, well educated and middle class?
Click to expand...

Race, colour and wealth has nothing to do with it at all. Saying that many other people I think would agree that if the parents were black and on the dole the vitriol would have come a lot sooner. If anything the McCann's have got away with it because of the middle class, doctor persona.

As for the girl in the bath, that is entirely different and anyone with an ounce of common sense will realise why.
 
GarethDW said:
The Act in question makes no reference to neglect only being when a child is "persistently"put at risk. If a parent leaves a lighter in a child's room and the child plays with it, causing a fire, is the parent not guilty of neglect, as it only happened the once?

You don't have to be repeatedly neglectful for the consequences to be tragic - as the McCanns have discovered.
Click to expand...

I believe that access to fire starting equipment is a specific offence under that act you quote.

Sorry but for a successful prosecution of child neglect it needs to be an extreme isolated incident (e.g. leaving your kids at home while you go on holiday) or persistent failure to provide adequate care.

I'm confident that the CPS will bring no charges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom