'I judge children by their names' (1 Viewer)

[Grendel]

Can we recall, just for the record, that the McCanns were dining 50 metres from their room in the closed holiday resort complex and it was considered safe, secure and normal for children to be in bed close by. Now we all know that was not so, but the context is important for balance. It is often printed that they had, "gone out to dinner" or "out drinking" giving the impression they were far away. Not so. They were foolish, probably negligent, but have paid a heavy price. As for the publicity they sought and attention they craved. Well, that seems consistent with fear, panic and gut-wrenching remorse.

As I'm sure does ensuring money donated by the public paid for their salaries while they grieved.

 

---

[Otis]

Can we recall, just for the record, that the McCanns were dining 50 metres from their room in the closed holiday resort complex and it was considered safe, secure and normal for children to be in bed close by. Now we all know that was not so, but the context is important for balance. It is often printed that they had, "gone out to dinner" or "out drinking" giving the impression they were far away. Not so. They were foolish, probably negligent, but have paid a heavy price. As for the publicity they sought and attention they craved. Well, that seems consistent with fear, panic and gut-wrenching remorse.

They left their kids though. That is something I would never, ever do. My daughter would come with me, or we wouldn't eat out. Simple as that.

If I couldn't take my daughter, then either my wife or I would have to stay with my daughter. Either that or we would all eat in.

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Can we recall, just for the record, that the McCanns were dining 50 metres from their room in the closed holiday resort complex and it was considered safe, secure and normal for children to be in bed close by. Now we all know that was not so, but the context is important for balance. It is often printed that they had, "gone out to dinner" or "out drinking" giving the impression they were far away. Not so. They were foolish, probably negligent, but have paid a heavy price. As for the publicity they sought and attention they craved. Well, that seems consistent with fear, panic and gut-wrenching remorse.

Well said Sir.

 

[chiefdave]

They left their kids though. That is something I would never, ever do. My daughter would come with me, or we wouldn't eat out. Simple as that.

If I couldn't take my daughter, then either my wife or I would have to stay with my daughter. Either that or we would all eat in.

Wasn't there a whole group of them with kids? If they didn't want to use the resorts baby sitting service then just take turns looking after them.

I wouldn't leave my dog on his own if I was on holiday let alone a kid!

 

[Otis]

Wasn't there a whole group of them with kids? If they didn't want to use the resorts baby sitting service then just take turns looking after them.

I wouldn't leave my dog on his own if I was on holiday let alone a kid!

There was a whole group of them. At least one of them should have stayed behind with the kids.

Very selfish.

 

[oakey]

I don't disagree with any of that. But unless they are murderers they have suffered a heavier price than their neglect deserves IMO. The loss itself is enough to kill you, but knowing you were foolishly neglecting your child and exposed her to, who knows what horrific end, that is too awful to bear.
In their position only the thought that the other two children would suffer too would stop me from doing myself in.

 

[Otis]

Me too. Most definitely.

Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Astute]

I don't disagree with any of that. But unless they are murderers they have suffered a heavier price than their neglect deserves IMO. The loss itself is enough to kill you, but knowing you were foolishly neglecting your child and exposed her to, who knows what horrific end, that is too awful to bear.
In their position only the thought that the other two children would suffer too would stop me from doing myself in.

Yes they have paid a heavy price. There is no doubt about that. But their daughter paid the ultimate price.

If my actions caused the death of one of my children I would expect to be prosecuted. I would expect that to happen to anyone. But we now have a so called human rights where the person committing crimes has more rights than those they commit their crimes against. The courts are now too lenient. And if they do get time they get free B&B with a Playstation. So instead of serving their time they get a free holiday. The law is becoming an ass.

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Yes they have paid a heavy price. There is no doubt about that. But their daughter paid the ultimate price.

If my actions caused the death of one of my children I would expect to be prosecuted. I would expect that to happen to anyone. But we now have a so called human rights where the person committing crimes has more rights than those they commit their crimes against. The courts are now too lenient. And if they do get time they get free B&B with a Playstation. So instead of serving their time they get a free holiday. The law is becoming an ass.

The McCann's actions didn't cause the death of one of their children. They made a huge mistake. One they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Instead of directing your scorn to them and claiming that their human rights prevented their prosecution (what nonsense), why don't you direct it at the vile piece of shit who abducted this little girl and to the justice system that allows known paedophiles to wander freely?

 

[Grendel]

The McCann's actions didn't cause the death of one of their children. They made a huge mistake. One they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Instead of directing your scorn to them and claiming that their human rights prevented their prosecution (what nonsense), why don't you direct it at the vile piece of shit who abducted this little girl and to the justice system that allows known paedophiles to wander freely?

It wasn't a mistake - it was a conscious action they chose to take and they must have made a risk assessment.

The bigger risks would have been injuries incurred while left on their own.

They could have choked on a crisp. I wouldn't hold the crisp responsible.

Yes the perpetrator is the ultimate criminal but mistake is not accurate. They were happy leaving children unattended in a foreign environment.

 

[Astute]

The McCann's actions didn't cause the death of one of their children. They made a huge mistake. One they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Instead of directing your scorn to them and claiming that their human rights prevented their prosecution (what nonsense), why don't you direct it at the vile piece of shit who abducted this little girl and to the justice system that allows known paedophiles to wander freely?

Their actions did cause their daughters death /disappearance. If they never left their children alone so they could go out enjoying themselves it wouldn't have happened. And me saying about human rights wasn't anything to do with the parents. It was aimed at those who commit crimes and use human rights to get away with what they have done. Or as you call them vile scum. Why not read again what I said?

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Dreadful mistake, terrible error of judgement, yes a conscious error, call it what you want, it doesn't make them criminals.

They've learned a terrible lesson and paid the ultimate price. I'm sure they'd both swap a life sentence for their daughters' safety.

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Their actions did cause their daughters death /disappearance. If they never left their children alone so they could go out enjoying themselves it wouldn't have happened. And me saying about human rights wasn't anything to do with the parents. It was aimed at those who commit crimes and use human rights to get away with what they have done. Or as you call them vile scum. Why not read again what I said?

And if they'd never got on the plane it wouldn't have happened.

"And me saying about human rights wasn't anything to do with the parents." Yes it was. Read again

 

[Nick]

Dreadful mistake, terrible error of judgement, yes a conscious error, call it what you want, it doesn't make them criminals.

It is actually an offence to leave a child on their own where they could be at risk.

 

[Astute]

And if they'd never got on the plane it wouldn't have happened.

"And me saying about human rights wasn't anything to do with the parents." Yes it was. Read again

Yes it was an offence they committed. Nothing to do with getting on a plane. And when I said about people using the human rights I said about it being used to get away with crimes committed and the innocent being classed below them. Madeleines parents never got prosecuted. So explain to me how they used the human rights charter. You can't even get your head around the fact of them doing something wrong. You call it an error. You are looking for excuses for them.

 

[oakey]

If a person leaves their car unlocked does that action cause it to be stolen?
No, but they have been a contributory factor due to negligence.
it isn't a crime to leave a car unlocked but it is a crime to steal an unlocked car

 

[Grendel]

If a person leaves their car unlocked does that action cause it to be stolen?
No, but they have been a contributory factor due to negligence.
it isn't a crime to leave a car unlocked but it is a crime to steal an unlocked car

Odd comparing an inanimate object to a human being.

 

[oakey]

Odd comparing an inanimate object to a human being.

In law the principle of injury or damage is the same.

 

[oakey]

In any case the analogy concerned causation not the nature of the duty of care.

 

[Grendel]

In any case the analogy concerned causation not the nature of the duty of care.

With regard to duty of care do you think an insurance company would freely settle in that scenario?

 

[Ian1779]

If a person leaves their car unlocked does that action cause it to be stolen?
No, but they have been a contributory factor due to negligence.
it isn't a crime to leave a car unlocked but it is a crime to steal an unlocked car

What a piss poor analogy...

A child is a dependent - especially at that age. It relies on an adult figure to feed them, provide a safe environment to be in and most of all protect at all times. They failed in their duty to provide some of these basic provisions.

 

[oakey]

With regard to duty of care do you think an insurance company would freely settle in that scenario?

No idea and I can't see the relevance as nobody is arguing that they aren't guilty of a lack of care.
Whether it amounts to a crime is what is relevant and whether they caused a crime is relevant. I think probably their action wasn't a crime and their action didn't cause​ a crime. It was at worst contributory negligence hence the unlocked car analogy.

 

[stupot07]

No idea and I can't see the relevance as nobody is arguing that they aren't guilty of a lack of care.
Whether it amounts to a crime is what is relevant and whether they caused a crime is relevant. I think probably their action wasn't a crime and their action didn't cause​ a crime. It was at worst contributory negligence hence the unlocked car analogy.

There action was Neglect which is a crime.

From the NSPCC website:

"That’s not to say that there are no laws on leaving children home alone. Under the Children and Young Persons (England and Wales) Act 1933, the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 and the Children and Young Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1968, parents and carers can be prosecuted for neglect. This means that they can be fined or sent to prison if they are judged to have placed a child at risk of harm by leaving them at home alone, regardless of where in the UK the child lives.

There might not be a specific legal age to leave children alone but it’s safe to say babies, toddlers and young children should never be left alone, even if it’s just while you pop down the road. Even if they’re sleeping peacefully when you leave they could well wake up and get very upset when you’re not there to look after them. They would not be able to protect themselves in an emergency and may even try to leave the property to find you."

In this country they would have been charged with and in all probability been found guilty of neglect.

An article about parents being arrested in the uk for leaving children alone:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...r-leaving-kids-home-alone-made-every-day.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Yes it was an offence they committed. Nothing to do with getting on a plane. And when I said about people using the human rights I said about it being used to get away with crimes committed and the innocent being classed below them. Madeleines parents never got prosecuted. So explain to me how they used the human rights charter. You can't even get your head around the fact of them doing something wrong. You call it an error. You are looking for excuses for them.

To clarify, it was you, not me who suggested that the McCanns had in some way benefitted from 'human rights' protection (your post #149):

"If my actions caused the death of one of my children I would expect to be prosecuted. I would expect that to happen to anyone. But we now have a so called human rights where the person committing crimes has more rights than those they commit their crimes against."

The only offence committed was by the vile scumbag who took that little girl.

You and others such as the deeply unpleasant Katie Hopkins should direct your scorn against him and the system that continues to allows known paedophiles to roam the streets.

 

[Grendel]

To clarify, it was you, not me who suggested that the McCanns had in some way benefitted from 'human rights' protection (your post #149):

"If my actions caused the death of one of my children I would expect to be prosecuted. I would expect that to happen to anyone. But we now have a so called human rights where the person committing crimes has more rights than those they commit their crimes against."

The only offence committed was by the vile scumbag who took that little girl.

You and others such as the deeply unpleasant Katie Hopkins should direct your scorn against him and the system that continues to allows known paedophiles to roam the streets.

Well I guess you will not like what I really thought at the time will you.

I remember them doing a re-enactment afterwards - they played tennis - apparently the kids went to some baby farm in the day.

I thought well they don't want her in the day and they don't want her in the night.

Wishes come true.

How horrible am I.

 

[Grendel]

The real point on Astute her looking at what he has said about holidays is that he, like me, can't actually comprehend why you go on a family holiday and then ignore the children unless you want to give them your time.

It's selfishness. I want the children but only on my terms.

Plenty of adults have left babies while going down the local to get high and smashed and have been prosecuted.

These two are no better than them.

 

[Astute]

If a person leaves their car unlocked does that action cause it to be stolen?
No, but they have been a contributory factor due to negligence.
it isn't a crime to leave a car unlocked but it is a crime to steal an unlocked car

If there was a child left in the car it would be an offence if it was locked or not.

 

[Astute]

To clarify, it was you, not me who suggested that the McCanns had in some way benefitted from 'human rights' protection (your post #149):

"If my actions caused the death of one of my children I would expect to be prosecuted. I would expect that to happen to anyone. But we now have a so called human rights where the person committing crimes has more rights than those they commit their crimes against."

The only offence committed was by the vile scumbag who took that little girl.

You and others such as the deeply unpleasant Katie Hopkins should direct your scorn against him and the system that continues to allows known paedophiles to roam the streets.

And I say again where have I said that they used the human rights charter? They never got charged so didn't have a reason to use it. I was pointing out how biased the law can be. People have had their children taken off them for much less. Others have managed to keep their children after doing much worse. There is no consistency.

At the end of the day it was child neglect. This is an offence. It isn't an accident. They didn't leave them alone by accident. So it wasn't an accident.

 

[oakey]

If there was a child left in the car it would be an offence if it was locked or not.

As I understand it the case would hinge on whether there was "significant risk of harm" in UK. Do you know what the law in Portugal was in the relevant year?

 

[Nick]

If a person leaves their car unlocked does that action cause it to be stolen?
No, but they have been a contributory factor due to negligence.
it isn't a crime to leave a car unlocked but it is a crime to steal an unlocked car

If you leave your car unlocked or keys in it your insurance probably won't pay out.

It isn't a crime.

It is a crime to leave your child on their own when they build be endangered

 

[oakey]

1)When we hear of a child being harmed we all panic and fear it could happen to us.
2)Then we persuade ourselves that it could never happen to us because we are good parents. I wouldn't have done X, y or z.
3) Next we must satisfy ourselves that the parents of the victim were bad parents. Not difficult as there will always be a foolish or neglectful circumstance.
4) Now we can relax because we have rationalised the whole thing and persuaded ourselves that it couldn't happen to us.
5) Result, we overprotect and stifle our children but feel it is a price worth paying to keep them safe.
However, these things really are random and undeserved and could happen to anyone.
That's my view, that we can only do what we feel is right and shouldn't judge others too harshly when they fail ... but I don't wish to offend anyone.

 

[Astute]

1)When we hear of a child being harmed we all panic and fear it could happen to us.
2)Then we persuade ourselves that it could never happen to us because we are good parents. I wouldn't have done X, y or z.
3) Next we must satisfy ourselves that the parents of the victim were bad parents. Not difficult as there will always be a foolish or neglectful circumstance.
4) Now we can relax because we have rationalised the whole thing and persuaded ourselves that it couldn't happen to us.
5) Result, we overprotect and stifle our children but feel it is a price worth paying to keep them safe.
However, these things really are random and undeserved and could happen to anyone.
That's my view, that we can only do what we feel is right and shouldn't judge others too harshly when they fail ... but I don't wish to offend anyone.

I have never said that they were bad parents. I didn't watch them bring their children up so I wouldn't know. But they were certainly negligent on the occasion that we are talking about. So it was child neglect.

So we don't know for sure what the laws are where it happened on leaving small children alone? I would be very surprised if it is seen as OK there. So are you saying forget the laws of our country as it might be OK where you go? Would you be disgusted by someone leaving this country to take advantage of one of the countries where marriage is the norm at a very young age? Or is it just try to put a bit of doubt into what happened?

 

[oakey]

I have never said that they were bad parents. I didn't watch them bring their children up so I wouldn't know. But they were certainly negligent on the occasion that we are talking about. So it was child neglect.

So we don't know for sure what the laws are where it happened on leaving small children alone? I would be very surprised if it is seen as OK there. So are you saying forget the laws of our country as it might be OK where you go? Would you be disgusted by someone leaving this country to take advantage of one of the countries where marriage is the norm at a very young age? Or is it just try to put a bit of doubt into what happened?

We all agree it is child neglect. They did not break a law in that or this country, as far as I know. I don't think they would have been prosecuted in the UK as the circumstances did not break any law and I think the police would simply not press any charges. To suggest they left this country and then took advantage of another country's lax laws is very wide of the mark, I think.

Assuming they were not in any way involved in the crime, that their version of events is true, do you really want to see them dragged through a court case and locked up? What would be gained except further suffering? Do you really think they have not suffered a huge amount, already, deserved perhaps you think, but still real?

 

[Astute]

We all agree it is child neglect. They did not break a law in that or this country, as far as I know. I don't think they would have been prosecuted in the UK as the circumstances did not break any law and I think the police would simply not press any charges. To suggest they left this country and then took advantage of another country's lax laws is very wide of the mark, I think.

Assuming they were not in any way involved in the crime, that their version of events is true, do you really want to see them dragged through a court case and locked up? What would be gained except further suffering? Do you really think they have not suffered a huge amount, already, deserved perhaps you think, but still real?

I know you can read. Try this small sentence again.

Child neglect is against the law.

It is something that you can have your children taken off you for and end up with a prison sentence. I know what happens. It isn't something that I want to go into on an open forum. But I have a relative who lost her children through child neglect. And no harm ever came to any of them. But she suffers from depression. It wasn't what had happened but what might happen.

Then you have this case. It is what has happened and not what might happen. Are they putting their full effort into bringing up their remaining children or is it full effort into trying to find out what happened to Madeleine because of guilt?

 

[oakey]

Child neglect has to be interpreted in law. A case has to be argued. It is not an easy case to prove.
You havent addressed my question
What would be the point?