comment by Dave Sanchez 🤓🦈🐠 (U11711)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Dave Sanchez 🤓🦈🐠 (U11711)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Dave Sanchez 🤓🦈🐠 (U11711)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 20 seconds ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IT WASNT THEIR HOME!!! FECK! Change your name to "Two short planks".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was their home for the duration of their stay, thus it was their home.
When I'm on holiday and I say we're out for food and my son asks where are we going now. I say to him we're going home. He knows we are going to the place we're staying and not actually back to our home in our home country. And he's three. It doesn't really say much for you does it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'd be telling lies to your child then. Renting a temporary holiday apartment is never a home.
Keep digging Mr. Two short planks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not. I just know the meaning of words.
It is funny however how many people on here are laughing at this until they think oh crap, I better check a dictionary. I'd love to see your faces when you do.
Oh dear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your anecdotal usage of a word means nothing in a legal sense, which is what you're trying to use it for. You're absolutely wrong, 100%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
Any time you leave a three year old 'home' on their own IS a life threatening situation.
This.
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 55 seconds ago
Ok, let's go with there was an abduction (I don't think there was, but that's irrelevant).
The fact is they left her and two other kids unattended which gave the opportunity for a kidnapper to strike. Therefore they " left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment." which is your definition of neglect. Yes?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, otherwise it would just be automatic as any time a child is home could therefore be perceived as life-threatening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, by going out and leaving three children unattended - the eldest being just 3 - they didn't put them in a dangerous situation? How the hell did a "kidnapper" get in then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I cross the road you could say I put myself in a dangerous situation. However there's no law against crossing the road. Again we are talking about the legal side of it, not the moral side.
comment by CakeOrDeath (U20439)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 55 seconds ago
Ok, let's go with there was an abduction (I don't think there was, but that's irrelevant).
The fact is they left her and two other kids unattended which gave the opportunity for a kidnapper to strike. Therefore they " left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment." which is your definition of neglect. Yes?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, otherwise it would just be automatic as any time a child is home could therefore be perceived as life-threatening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any time you leave a three year old 'home' on their own IS a life threatening situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not according to law. Once again we are talking about the legality of it not the morality of it.
comment by Dave Sanchez 🤓🦈🐠 (U11711)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 55 seconds ago
Ok, let's go with there was an abduction (I don't think there was, but that's irrelevant).
The fact is they left her and two other kids unattended which gave the opportunity for a kidnapper to strike. Therefore they " left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment." which is your definition of neglect. Yes?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, otherwise it would just be automatic as any time a child is home could therefore be perceived as life-threatening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also morally I believe you're correct, I would never do it for that reason but we're talking about legally here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we ARE talking legally here, just like when you don't own a rental property in a foreign country it is not your home.
Congratulations Mr. Two short planks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't have to own a property for it to be your home. Your home can be a temporary dwelling. Please read a dictionary before commenting further on this. I can't make this any more clear.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
No, I wouldn't now do it with my own but I certainly may have before I heard of this case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm....what?!
Until Madeleine McCann disappeared you "certainly may have" left your own children in an apartment so that you could go out for a meal?
You're either a very committed WUM or a godawful parent.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by CakeOrDeath (U20439)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 55 seconds ago
Ok, let's go with there was an abduction (I don't think there was, but that's irrelevant).
The fact is they left her and two other kids unattended which gave the opportunity for a kidnapper to strike. Therefore they " left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment." which is your definition of neglect. Yes?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, otherwise it would just be automatic as any time a child is home could therefore be perceived as life-threatening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any time you leave a three year old 'home' on their own IS a life threatening situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not according to law. Once again we are talking about the legality of it not the morality of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're contradicting yourself!
They left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment. Which is the legal definition you provided! Nothing to do with morals.
My problem is that I underestimated how big a moron and up your own @rse you are, mate.
comment by Patriarch (U11015)
posted 2 minutes ago
Any time you leave a three year old 'home' on their own IS a life threatening situation.
This.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I already answered this? Not according to law.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Not according to law. Once again we are talking about the legality of it not the morality of it.
That's not correct. You could easily be found guilty of neglect by leaving a three year old in the house by myself. Lol why can't you grasp that??
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by CakeOrDeath (U20439)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 55 seconds ago
Ok, let's go with there was an abduction (I don't think there was, but that's irrelevant).
The fact is they left her and two other kids unattended which gave the opportunity for a kidnapper to strike. Therefore they " left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment." which is your definition of neglect. Yes?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, otherwise it would just be automatic as any time a child is home could therefore be perceived as life-threatening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any time you leave a three year old 'home' on their own IS a life threatening situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not according to law. Once again we are talking about the legality of it not the morality of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're contradicting yourself!
They left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment. Which is the legal definition you provided! Nothing to do with morals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not. I said that in law, UK law at least there is nothing in it which says that you're automatically guilty of child neglect if you leave a child under a certain age at home. This must be the case in Portugal also hence no charges brought against them for it.
Like I said morally I wouldn't do it but legally there's nothing that automatically makes you guilty.
comment by Patriarch (U11015)
posted 2 minutes ago
Not according to law. Once again we are talking about the legality of it not the morality of it.
That's not correct. You could easily be found guilty of neglect by leaving a three year old in the house by myself. Lol why can't you grasp that??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could. I haven't said you couldn't.
Automatically makes you guilty? You're not automatically guilty of anything you moron. That's why the case goes to court and then it's decided there. But that's a clear example of you being obtuse because you know you're wrong.
Well done VC. You've demonstrated you know the meaning of 'their'. Go to the top of the class son.
..............
And now you do. You are welcome to being educated.
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 27 seconds ago
I'm out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just don't go more than 50 yards and you'll be fine
TOOR
Let me try a different angle. Let's say I have a 1 year old daughter. It's about 7:30 and she's fast asleep in bed in no danger at all, so I decide to go to the pub and leave her alone.
When I get back (let's say an hour later) a neighbour has called the police as they've heard crying and the policeman is knocking at my door. I go inside, show the offcier she's in her cot and in no danger, she's not hungry either she just wants attention.
Do you think the police say:
A) that's fine enjoy your day
B) wtf are you doing, and then call social services and arrest me.
According to you she's in no danger, and therefore it's not neglect right?
comment by Patriarch (U11015)
posted 3 minutes ago
Automatically makes you guilty? You're not automatically guilty of anything you moron. That's why the case goes to court and then it's decided there. But that's a clear example of you being obtuse because you know you're wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say you were.
What I am saying is that people are automatically classing them as guilty of child neglect due to leaving the children at home when they were dining 50 metres away. Morally I believe this is correct. Legally that's not the case, they would have to be proven in a court of being guilty of that, using the law.
Calling people names because you don't understand words perhaps makes you the moron?
comment by vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR
Let me try a different angle. Let's say I have a 1 year old daughter. It's about 7:30 and she's fast asleep in bed in no danger at all, so I decide to go to the pub and leave her alone.
When I get back (let's say an hour later) a neighbour has called the police as they've heard crying and the policeman is knocking at my door. I go inside, show the offcier she's in her cot and in no danger, she's not hungry either she just wants attention.
Do you think the police say:
A) that's fine enjoy your day
B) wtf are you doing, and then call social services and arrest me.
According to you she's in no danger, and therefore it's not neglect right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The report it and then it will be decided whether to press charges. If charges are pressed there will be a court appearance and then guilt will be decided based on the law.
Lol I understand words you moron. I also understand that nobody here said that they were automatically guilty. You just know you're wrong so you have changed your argument, yet again.
Moron.
i cant understand how anyone can try and justify what those cants did.
its all irrelivent anyway because they killed her.
Where were you 370 comments ago Dunc
Sign in if you want to comment
One rule for the McCanns....
Page 15 of 22
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
posted on 2/5/18
comment by Dave Sanchez 🤓🦈🐠 (U11711)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Dave Sanchez 🤓🦈🐠 (U11711)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Dave Sanchez 🤓🦈🐠 (U11711)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 20 seconds ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IT WASNT THEIR HOME!!! FECK! Change your name to "Two short planks".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was their home for the duration of their stay, thus it was their home.
When I'm on holiday and I say we're out for food and my son asks where are we going now. I say to him we're going home. He knows we are going to the place we're staying and not actually back to our home in our home country. And he's three. It doesn't really say much for you does it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'd be telling lies to your child then. Renting a temporary holiday apartment is never a home.
Keep digging Mr. Two short planks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not. I just know the meaning of words.
It is funny however how many people on here are laughing at this until they think oh crap, I better check a dictionary. I'd love to see your faces when you do.
Oh dear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your anecdotal usage of a word means nothing in a legal sense, which is what you're trying to use it for. You're absolutely wrong, 100%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
posted on 2/5/18
Any time you leave a three year old 'home' on their own IS a life threatening situation.
This.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 55 seconds ago
Ok, let's go with there was an abduction (I don't think there was, but that's irrelevant).
The fact is they left her and two other kids unattended which gave the opportunity for a kidnapper to strike. Therefore they " left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment." which is your definition of neglect. Yes?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, otherwise it would just be automatic as any time a child is home could therefore be perceived as life-threatening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, by going out and leaving three children unattended - the eldest being just 3 - they didn't put them in a dangerous situation? How the hell did a "kidnapper" get in then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I cross the road you could say I put myself in a dangerous situation. However there's no law against crossing the road. Again we are talking about the legal side of it, not the moral side.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by CakeOrDeath (U20439)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 55 seconds ago
Ok, let's go with there was an abduction (I don't think there was, but that's irrelevant).
The fact is they left her and two other kids unattended which gave the opportunity for a kidnapper to strike. Therefore they " left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment." which is your definition of neglect. Yes?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, otherwise it would just be automatic as any time a child is home could therefore be perceived as life-threatening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any time you leave a three year old 'home' on their own IS a life threatening situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not according to law. Once again we are talking about the legality of it not the morality of it.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by Dave Sanchez 🤓🦈🐠 (U11711)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 0 seconds ago
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 55 seconds ago
Ok, let's go with there was an abduction (I don't think there was, but that's irrelevant).
The fact is they left her and two other kids unattended which gave the opportunity for a kidnapper to strike. Therefore they " left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment." which is your definition of neglect. Yes?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, otherwise it would just be automatic as any time a child is home could therefore be perceived as life-threatening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also morally I believe you're correct, I would never do it for that reason but we're talking about legally here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So we ARE talking legally here, just like when you don't own a rental property in a foreign country it is not your home.
Congratulations Mr. Two short planks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't have to own a property for it to be your home. Your home can be a temporary dwelling. Please read a dictionary before commenting further on this. I can't make this any more clear.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
No, I wouldn't now do it with my own but I certainly may have before I heard of this case.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm....what?!
Until Madeleine McCann disappeared you "certainly may have" left your own children in an apartment so that you could go out for a meal?
You're either a very committed WUM or a godawful parent.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by CakeOrDeath (U20439)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 55 seconds ago
Ok, let's go with there was an abduction (I don't think there was, but that's irrelevant).
The fact is they left her and two other kids unattended which gave the opportunity for a kidnapper to strike. Therefore they " left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment." which is your definition of neglect. Yes?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, otherwise it would just be automatic as any time a child is home could therefore be perceived as life-threatening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any time you leave a three year old 'home' on their own IS a life threatening situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not according to law. Once again we are talking about the legality of it not the morality of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're contradicting yourself!
They left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment. Which is the legal definition you provided! Nothing to do with morals.
posted on 2/5/18
My problem is that I underestimated how big a moron and up your own @rse you are, mate.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by Patriarch (U11015)
posted 2 minutes ago
Any time you leave a three year old 'home' on their own IS a life threatening situation.
This.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I already answered this? Not according to law.
posted on 2/5/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 2/5/18
Not according to law. Once again we are talking about the legality of it not the morality of it.
That's not correct. You could easily be found guilty of neglect by leaving a three year old in the house by myself. Lol why can't you grasp that??
posted on 2/5/18
*by itself
posted on 2/5/18
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by CakeOrDeath (U20439)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 55 seconds ago
Ok, let's go with there was an abduction (I don't think there was, but that's irrelevant).
The fact is they left her and two other kids unattended which gave the opportunity for a kidnapper to strike. Therefore they " left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment." which is your definition of neglect. Yes?
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, otherwise it would just be automatic as any time a child is home could therefore be perceived as life-threatening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any time you leave a three year old 'home' on their own IS a life threatening situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not according to law. Once again we are talking about the legality of it not the morality of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But you're contradicting yourself!
They left the child in a dangerous or life-threatening environment. Which is the legal definition you provided! Nothing to do with morals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not. I said that in law, UK law at least there is nothing in it which says that you're automatically guilty of child neglect if you leave a child under a certain age at home. This must be the case in Portugal also hence no charges brought against them for it.
Like I said morally I wouldn't do it but legally there's nothing that automatically makes you guilty.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by Patriarch (U11015)
posted 2 minutes ago
Not according to law. Once again we are talking about the legality of it not the morality of it.
That's not correct. You could easily be found guilty of neglect by leaving a three year old in the house by myself. Lol why can't you grasp that??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could. I haven't said you couldn't.
posted on 2/5/18
I'm out.
posted on 2/5/18
Automatically makes you guilty? You're not automatically guilty of anything you moron. That's why the case goes to court and then it's decided there. But that's a clear example of you being obtuse because you know you're wrong.
posted on 2/5/18
Well done VC. You've demonstrated you know the meaning of 'their'. Go to the top of the class son.
..............
And now you do. You are welcome to being educated.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 27 seconds ago
I'm out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just don't go more than 50 yards and you'll be fine
posted on 2/5/18
TOOR
Let me try a different angle. Let's say I have a 1 year old daughter. It's about 7:30 and she's fast asleep in bed in no danger at all, so I decide to go to the pub and leave her alone.
When I get back (let's say an hour later) a neighbour has called the police as they've heard crying and the policeman is knocking at my door. I go inside, show the offcier she's in her cot and in no danger, she's not hungry either she just wants attention.
Do you think the police say:
A) that's fine enjoy your day
B) wtf are you doing, and then call social services and arrest me.
According to you she's in no danger, and therefore it's not neglect right?
posted on 2/5/18
comment by Patriarch (U11015)
posted 3 minutes ago
Automatically makes you guilty? You're not automatically guilty of anything you moron. That's why the case goes to court and then it's decided there. But that's a clear example of you being obtuse because you know you're wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say you were.
What I am saying is that people are automatically classing them as guilty of child neglect due to leaving the children at home when they were dining 50 metres away. Morally I believe this is correct. Legally that's not the case, they would have to be proven in a court of being guilty of that, using the law.
Calling people names because you don't understand words perhaps makes you the moron?
posted on 2/5/18
comment by vidicthelegend VIVA LA REVOLUTION (U8735)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR
Let me try a different angle. Let's say I have a 1 year old daughter. It's about 7:30 and she's fast asleep in bed in no danger at all, so I decide to go to the pub and leave her alone.
When I get back (let's say an hour later) a neighbour has called the police as they've heard crying and the policeman is knocking at my door. I go inside, show the offcier she's in her cot and in no danger, she's not hungry either she just wants attention.
Do you think the police say:
A) that's fine enjoy your day
B) wtf are you doing, and then call social services and arrest me.
According to you she's in no danger, and therefore it's not neglect right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The report it and then it will be decided whether to press charges. If charges are pressed there will be a court appearance and then guilt will be decided based on the law.
posted on 2/5/18
Lol I understand words you moron. I also understand that nobody here said that they were automatically guilty. You just know you're wrong so you have changed your argument, yet again.
Moron.
posted on 2/5/18
I tried
posted on 2/5/18
i cant understand how anyone can try and justify what those cants did.
its all irrelivent anyway because they killed her.
posted on 2/5/18
Where were you 370 comments ago Dunc
Page 15 of 22
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20