The McCann's didn't think it was child neglect?

comment by Patriarch (U11015)
posted 22 minutes ago
The McCann's didn't think it was child neglect?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously not. Nor did the Portuguese police, or they'd have been tried for child neglect.

I also don't believe it's automatically child neglect to leave your kids sleeping whilst you eat 50 metres away.

You keep saying '50 yards away' as if they were in a large hall in the same room.

They were in another building on the street, 50 or 500 they couldn't see what was going on inside the room, nor would they have been able to see the entrances/exits to the room.

They should never have been charged with neglect.... murder yes.

Well it doesn't matter if the McCann's thought it was neglect or not. That's just idiotic.

There's a couple of different reasons why the Portuguese Police didn't prosecute for neglect. Compassion being one of them. But that's the point of the OP. That compassion wouldn't have been extended to a couple from some rough estate on benefits.

Clarence Mitchell, the couple's spokesman, said Kate and Gerry vigorously deny neglecting Madeleine and welcome the news that abduction is a line of inquiry.

He said: 'This court document outlines the areas of the investigation and in no way suggests Kate and Gerry will be facing any such charges.

'Equally we have heard nothing officially to suggest any such area of investigation is being considered."

The above quote would suggest that they were not properly investigated for neglect.

And you might not think it's automatically child neglect. But you're a twisted and obtuse person, and I bet you wouldn't do it with your own children.

Also to people talking about blood and DNA matches. Well that's not entirely true.

The lab responsible for analysing the traces found that it was inconclusive as the samples provided very little information and came from more than one person.

They say that the markers found in the sample were not enough to conclude they came from Madeleine as whilst they found markers matching her DNA, they found a total of 37 markers in the sample, which meant it had to come from at least three people.

Not only this but even with a full match the experts stated that this would not constitute concrete proof but just clues.

Also the definition of the LCN profile of the DNA is not considered as evidence in a criminal investigation.

They were unable to determine when the samples were dated, how it was deposited, which bodily fluid they came from and whether they were there as a result of a crime.

With all this in mind, you can see why it didn't happen.

"That compassion wouldn't have been extended to a couple from some rough estate on benefits."

Of course it wouldn't because it was a completely different situation.

"And you might not think it's automatically child neglect. But you're a twisted and obtuse person, and I bet you wouldn't do it with your own children."

I'm not twisted or obtuse. You seem to be getting a bit passionate yourself, angry perhaps? Calm down.

No, I wouldn't now do it with my own but I certainly may have before I heard of this case.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago

I also don't believe it's automatically child neglect to leave your kids sleeping whilst you eat 50 metres away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you are wrong. Plain and simple, your DUTY as a parent is to look after your children to the best of your ability, even if it means sacrificing your pleasures.

comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 1 minute ago

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago

I also don't believe it's automatically child neglect to leave your kids sleeping whilst you eat 50 metres away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you are wrong.
-----------------------------------------
I'm not. Read the law on it.

I'm not talking about the morality surrounding it.

Why would I be angry?

I have been reading this site for many years. And you are the most twisted and obtuse person on it.

And I guess that you aren't as smart as you think you are because it shouldn't take a young girl to go missing to figure out that leaving children of that age alone in an apartment by themselves is a bad idea.

TOOR, not being funny, but do you have your own biological child or is it a step-son? I seriously cannot comprehend anyone who thinks it's ok to leave children under the age of three unattended while they go out.

I'm not. Read the law on it.
----------------
Nowhere does it say that you are right. You mentioned yesterday that the law does not specify a set age at which children should not be left alone. That's because some children mature quicker than others. But that is more for kids around 12 or 13. Not a three year old.

posted 9 minutes ago

TOOR, not being funny, but do you have your own biological child

.............

If he does, then this is another example of why there needs to be a law that prohibits breeding by stupid people.

comment by Patriarch (U11015)
posted 4 seconds ago
Why would I be angry?

I have been reading this site for many years. And you are the most twisted and obtuse person on it.

And I guess that you aren't as smart as you think you are because it shouldn't take a young girl to go missing to figure out that leaving children of that age alone in an apartment by themselves is a bad idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it was a bad idea that time but then they didn't know that at the time. Considering around the time there was a report done on holiday makers from the UK, it established it was a common occurrence for couples to put they children to sleep and dine not for from where they were staying. I bet the report would produce different results now.

Again you seem to be angry, firing out insults. Do you not like somebody having a different opinion to yours? Well that's something you're going to have to get used to in life.

Well it was a bad idea that time but then they didn't know that at the time.

...............

Stop talking.

comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 12 minutes ago
TOOR, not being funny, but do you have your own biological child or is it a step-son? I seriously cannot comprehend anyone who thinks it's ok to leave children under the age of three unattended while they go out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said it was OK?

I certainly did not. I said there is no law in the UK which says you can't leave a child under a certain age at home, whilst you dine 50 metres away. Seemingly not in Portugal either.

comment by Patriarch (U11015)
posted 9 minutes ago
I'm not. Read the law on it.
----------------
Nowhere does it say that you are right. You mentioned yesterday that the law does not specify a set age at which children should not be left alone. That's because some children mature quicker than others. But that is more for kids around 12 or 13. Not a three year old.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes, in fact, it does.

It says it is only a crime if the child is left in dangerous or life-threatening conditions which is literally saying you're not automatically guilty of child neglect if you leave your child at home.

Lol you're a moron mate.

Neglect is the ongoing failure to meet a child's basic needs and is the most common form of child abuse. A child may be left hungry or dirty, without adequate clothing, shelter, supervision, medical or health care. A child may be put in danger or not protected from physical or emotional harm.

The above is the actual definition of child neglect OK. They were without adequate supervision and not protected from physical harm. Obviously.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Damn you're obtuse.

..............

Stupid is the word I would use.

comment by Patriarch (U11015)
posted 2 minutes ago
Lol you're a moron mate.

Neglect is the ongoing failure to meet a child's basic needs and is the most common form of child abuse. A child may be left hungry or dirty, without adequate clothing, shelter, supervision, medical or health care. A child may be put in danger or not protected from physical or emotional harm.

The above is the actual definition of child neglect OK. They were without adequate supervision and not protected from physical harm. Obviously.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't argue against any of that so I'm not sure why you're insulting me based on it.

I'll repeat, there is no law which says you can't leave a child under a certain age at home and makes you automatically guilty of child neglect. Read this carefully this time.

I am not saying it's right.

I'll also put a disclaimer in as I know what VC can do, he's done it to me in the past. I'll come back to this when he lies about what I said.

Disclaimer: I did not say it is OK to leave a child at home when you dine 50 metres away. I said that there is no law that automatically makes you guilty of child neglect if you leave a child at home and done 50 metres away.

In essence you would have to be proven guilty, that you left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment. Did they? Well that's up for debate as if what they said occurred, that wasn't their fault.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Also when somebody says 'lol you're a moron mate', that's hypocritical in itself.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator