comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
Not it isn't.
..............
One of their kids went missing after being left alone by their parents.
Therefore that child was placed in harms way by her parents who were out on the beer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore that child was placed in harms way by her parents
----------------------------
No she wasn't. She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The abductors gonna abduct, he’s a scuuumbag, but he is what he is. It’s the parents who have to make sure their children are safe. I agree it’s pretty rare for something like this to happen, but parents have to look after their children. I have two young twin baby sisters (both 2 years old) and they are never less than like 5 metres away from an adult, I swear and they certainly are never alone in a building without an adult.
No she wasn't.
........
Yes she was.
............
She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her.
..............
Which wouldn't have happened if the parents were in the apartment, would it?
Their neglect created that situation.
This has to be one elaborate wum. Nobody can be this stubborn and dense surely?
Maddie would have been found, re-united, had her own family and took the kids on holiday before this thread ends!!
comment by Nostraduncus (U11713)
posted 5 hours, 52 minutes ago
its true mate, they killed that poor kid and tried to deceive the whole country and get sympathy.
id happily walk across the street to knee that biiitch in the clunge before gozzing on her
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dont forget to make a fortune on the back of it all
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
"She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her."
I surprised your level of pedantism and regular insistence that others consult a dictionary has allowed you to type this.
This is all about risk assessment - they, apparently, assessed that leaving their very young children in a room alone was safe, because they could see the outside of the building and they went over and checked them every half hour (that was a time mentioned here). Most other people assess this as an unacceptably high risk - ie. anything could happen in the other 27 mins (for example), because you can't actually see them, or hear them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree.
You seem to be arguing against me as if I were saying it wasn't a risk. I have already stated that I wouldn't do it.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
"She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her."
I surprised your level of pedantism and regular insistence that others consult a dictionary has allowed you to type this.
This is all about risk assessment - they, apparently, assessed that leaving their very young children in a room alone was safe, because they could see the outside of the building and they went over and checked them every half hour (that was a time mentioned here). Most other people assess this as an unacceptably high risk - ie. anything could happen in the other 27 mins (for example), because you can't actually see them, or hear them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree.
You seem to be arguing against me as if I were saying it wasn't a risk. I have already stated that I wouldn't do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't you previously state that you would have done exactly that until it happened??
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
"She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her."
I surprised your level of pedantism and regular insistence that others consult a dictionary has allowed you to type this.
This is all about risk assessment - they, apparently, assessed that leaving their very young children in a room alone was safe, because they could see the outside of the building and they went over and checked them every half hour (that was a time mentioned here). Most other people assess this as an unacceptably high risk - ie. anything could happen in the other 27 mins (for example), because you can't actually see them, or hear them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree.
You seem to be arguing against me as if I were saying it wasn't a risk. I have already stated that I wouldn't do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are also arguing that there isn't a case for neglect - I am saying that their failure to come close to adequately assessing the risk is, pretty much, the very defintion of neglect.
comment by Dunne was under Unger and I was over Dunne (U6037)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
"She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her."
I surprised your level of pedantism and regular insistence that others consult a dictionary has allowed you to type this.
This is all about risk assessment - they, apparently, assessed that leaving their very young children in a room alone was safe, because they could see the outside of the building and they went over and checked them every half hour (that was a time mentioned here). Most other people assess this as an unacceptably high risk - ie. anything could happen in the other 27 mins (for example), because you can't actually see them, or hear them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree.
You seem to be arguing against me as if I were saying it wasn't a risk. I have already stated that I wouldn't do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't you previously state that you would have done exactly that until it happened??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Dunne was under Unger and I was over Dunne (U6037)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
"She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her."
I surprised your level of pedantism and regular insistence that others consult a dictionary has allowed you to type this.
This is all about risk assessment - they, apparently, assessed that leaving their very young children in a room alone was safe, because they could see the outside of the building and they went over and checked them every half hour (that was a time mentioned here). Most other people assess this as an unacceptably high risk - ie. anything could happen in the other 27 mins (for example), because you can't actually see them, or hear them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree.
You seem to be arguing against me as if I were saying it wasn't a risk. I have already stated that I wouldn't do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't you previously state that you would have done exactly that until it happened??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You did imply that it was common practice though, based on some vague report you'd read "at the time", apparently written by a Portuguese investigative reporter.
Facking hell, reading all of the last 6 pages and realise
TOOR = WINSTON
You did imply that it was common practice though, based on some vague report you'd read "at the time", apparently written by a Portuguese investigative reporter.
..............
Something no one else has ever seen as well.
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
"She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her."
I surprised your level of pedantism and regular insistence that others consult a dictionary has allowed you to type this.
This is all about risk assessment - they, apparently, assessed that leaving their very young children in a room alone was safe, because they could see the outside of the building and they went over and checked them every half hour (that was a time mentioned here). Most other people assess this as an unacceptably high risk - ie. anything could happen in the other 27 mins (for example), because you can't actually see them, or hear them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree.
You seem to be arguing against me as if I were saying it wasn't a risk. I have already stated that I wouldn't do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are also arguing that there isn't a case for neglect - I am saying that their failure to come close to adequately assessing the risk is, pretty much, the very defintion of neglect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I am not. I said they aren't automatically guilty of neglect for being 50 metres away when the kids were sleeping at home. According to UK law anyhow and with the lack of a charge in Portugal, I'm guessing Portuguese law also.
I said they aren't automatically guilty of neglect for being 50 metres away when the kids were sleeping at home.
..................
What you say and actual reality are two completely different things,.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
You did imply that it was common practice though, based on some vague report you'd read "at the time", apparently written by a Portuguese investigative reporter.
..............
Something no one else has ever seen as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's gonna be difficult to see as it didn't happen. Somebody has mixed up two things I said into one.
Firstly I said I remember reading a report years ago which had asked British holiday makers if they went out of the room and socialised whilst their children slept on the room. Many did.
Secondly I spoke about a report, I believe by a Portuguese investigative journalist who picked apart the leading investigator's book, written after he was kicked off the case.
comment by Clog Wearing Donkey (U1250)
posted 11 minutes ago
Facking hell, reading all of the last 6 pages and realise
TOOR = WINSTON
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
If presented with evidence to prove me wrong, I admit I'm wrong.
TOOR doesn't.
As for arguing for days and days on here about the same thing then yes, I'm rather stubborn - as are a lot of people on this forum... let's face it, it takes to to tango.
If presented with evidence to prove me wrong, I admit I'm wrong.
...............
No, Winston, you do not. You are a lying sack of crap.
Secondly I spoke about a report, I believe by a Portuguese investigative journalist who picked apart the leading investigator's book, written after he was kicked off the case.
...................
And yet you can't show us any quotes form the book that are incorrect.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Clog Wearing Donkey (U1250)
posted 11 minutes ago
Facking hell, reading all of the last 6 pages and realise
TOOR = WINSTON
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
If presented with evidence to prove me wrong, I admit I'm wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------
That's the funniest thing I have read on here for ages!
This article has even more legs now Winston is here.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
You did imply that it was common practice though, based on some vague report you'd read "at the time", apparently written by a Portuguese investigative reporter.
..............
Something no one else has ever seen as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's gonna be difficult to see as it didn't happen. Somebody has mixed up two things I said into one.
Firstly I said I remember reading a report years ago which had asked British holiday makers if they went out of the room and socialised whilst their children slept on the room. Many did.
Secondly I spoke about a report, I believe by a Portuguese investigative journalist who picked apart the leading investigator's book, written after he was kicked off the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah fair enough, I was obviously talking about the first one.
Alexis The King Sanchez (U10026)
Funny, I see it keep popping up and it makes me laugh that I'm not involved.
I have no intention of getting involved!
It does prove, however, that the idea I'm the only one on this forum that argues the same point for hours/days is nonsense.
This article has even more legs now Winston is here.
.................
Not really. Winston has some of us on Filter because he keeps losing arguments with us.
The boy is a proper wimp.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
"She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her."
I surprised your level of pedantism and regular insistence that others consult a dictionary has allowed you to type this.
This is all about risk assessment - they, apparently, assessed that leaving their very young children in a room alone was safe, because they could see the outside of the building and they went over and checked them every half hour (that was a time mentioned here). Most other people assess this as an unacceptably high risk - ie. anything could happen in the other 27 mins (for example), because you can't actually see them, or hear them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree.
You seem to be arguing against me as if I were saying it wasn't a risk. I have already stated that I wouldn't do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are also arguing that there isn't a case for neglect - I am saying that their failure to come close to adequately assessing the risk is, pretty much, the very defintion of neglect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I am not. I said they aren't automatically guilty of neglect for being 50 metres away when the kids were sleeping at home. According to UK law anyhow and with the lack of a charge in Portugal, I'm guessing Portuguese law also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you said, "I think the McCann's have been punished enough, don't you?".
And a few disagreed, you should have been clearer that your real concern was the legal definition of "neglect" in UK and/or Portguese law earlier - could have saved pages of precious internet space.
Like you, I'm not a lawyer - but I would view "neglect" as a fairly general subjective term that would need to be tested in court on a case by case basis. From what I've read here there's a pretty good case (as I detailed above), but for various reasons a case will probably never be brought.
Sign in if you want to comment
One rule for the McCanns....
Page 19 of 22
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
posted on 2/5/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
Not it isn't.
..............
One of their kids went missing after being left alone by their parents.
Therefore that child was placed in harms way by her parents who were out on the beer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore that child was placed in harms way by her parents
----------------------------
No she wasn't. She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The abductors gonna abduct, he’s a scuuumbag, but he is what he is. It’s the parents who have to make sure their children are safe. I agree it’s pretty rare for something like this to happen, but parents have to look after their children. I have two young twin baby sisters (both 2 years old) and they are never less than like 5 metres away from an adult, I swear and they certainly are never alone in a building without an adult.
posted on 2/5/18
No she wasn't.
........
Yes she was.
............
She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her.
..............
Which wouldn't have happened if the parents were in the apartment, would it?
Their neglect created that situation.
posted on 2/5/18
This has to be one elaborate wum. Nobody can be this stubborn and dense surely?
posted on 2/5/18
Maddie would have been found, re-united, had her own family and took the kids on holiday before this thread ends!!
posted on 2/5/18
comment by Nostraduncus (U11713)
posted 5 hours, 52 minutes ago
its true mate, they killed that poor kid and tried to deceive the whole country and get sympathy.
id happily walk across the street to knee that biiitch in the clunge before gozzing on her
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dont forget to make a fortune on the back of it all
posted on 2/5/18
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
"She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her."
I surprised your level of pedantism and regular insistence that others consult a dictionary has allowed you to type this.
This is all about risk assessment - they, apparently, assessed that leaving their very young children in a room alone was safe, because they could see the outside of the building and they went over and checked them every half hour (that was a time mentioned here). Most other people assess this as an unacceptably high risk - ie. anything could happen in the other 27 mins (for example), because you can't actually see them, or hear them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree.
You seem to be arguing against me as if I were saying it wasn't a risk. I have already stated that I wouldn't do it.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
"She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her."
I surprised your level of pedantism and regular insistence that others consult a dictionary has allowed you to type this.
This is all about risk assessment - they, apparently, assessed that leaving their very young children in a room alone was safe, because they could see the outside of the building and they went over and checked them every half hour (that was a time mentioned here). Most other people assess this as an unacceptably high risk - ie. anything could happen in the other 27 mins (for example), because you can't actually see them, or hear them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree.
You seem to be arguing against me as if I were saying it wasn't a risk. I have already stated that I wouldn't do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't you previously state that you would have done exactly that until it happened??
posted on 2/5/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
"She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her."
I surprised your level of pedantism and regular insistence that others consult a dictionary has allowed you to type this.
This is all about risk assessment - they, apparently, assessed that leaving their very young children in a room alone was safe, because they could see the outside of the building and they went over and checked them every half hour (that was a time mentioned here). Most other people assess this as an unacceptably high risk - ie. anything could happen in the other 27 mins (for example), because you can't actually see them, or hear them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree.
You seem to be arguing against me as if I were saying it wasn't a risk. I have already stated that I wouldn't do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are also arguing that there isn't a case for neglect - I am saying that their failure to come close to adequately assessing the risk is, pretty much, the very defintion of neglect.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by Dunne was under Unger and I was over Dunne (U6037)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
"She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her."
I surprised your level of pedantism and regular insistence that others consult a dictionary has allowed you to type this.
This is all about risk assessment - they, apparently, assessed that leaving their very young children in a room alone was safe, because they could see the outside of the building and they went over and checked them every half hour (that was a time mentioned here). Most other people assess this as an unacceptably high risk - ie. anything could happen in the other 27 mins (for example), because you can't actually see them, or hear them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree.
You seem to be arguing against me as if I were saying it wasn't a risk. I have already stated that I wouldn't do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't you previously state that you would have done exactly that until it happened??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Dunne was under Unger and I was over Dunne (U6037)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
"She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her."
I surprised your level of pedantism and regular insistence that others consult a dictionary has allowed you to type this.
This is all about risk assessment - they, apparently, assessed that leaving their very young children in a room alone was safe, because they could see the outside of the building and they went over and checked them every half hour (that was a time mentioned here). Most other people assess this as an unacceptably high risk - ie. anything could happen in the other 27 mins (for example), because you can't actually see them, or hear them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree.
You seem to be arguing against me as if I were saying it wasn't a risk. I have already stated that I wouldn't do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't you previously state that you would have done exactly that until it happened??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You did imply that it was common practice though, based on some vague report you'd read "at the time", apparently written by a Portuguese investigative reporter.
posted on 2/5/18
Facking hell, reading all of the last 6 pages and realise
TOOR = WINSTON
posted on 2/5/18
You did imply that it was common practice though, based on some vague report you'd read "at the time", apparently written by a Portuguese investigative reporter.
..............
Something no one else has ever seen as well.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
"She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her."
I surprised your level of pedantism and regular insistence that others consult a dictionary has allowed you to type this.
This is all about risk assessment - they, apparently, assessed that leaving their very young children in a room alone was safe, because they could see the outside of the building and they went over and checked them every half hour (that was a time mentioned here). Most other people assess this as an unacceptably high risk - ie. anything could happen in the other 27 mins (for example), because you can't actually see them, or hear them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree.
You seem to be arguing against me as if I were saying it wasn't a risk. I have already stated that I wouldn't do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are also arguing that there isn't a case for neglect - I am saying that their failure to come close to adequately assessing the risk is, pretty much, the very defintion of neglect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I am not. I said they aren't automatically guilty of neglect for being 50 metres away when the kids were sleeping at home. According to UK law anyhow and with the lack of a charge in Portugal, I'm guessing Portuguese law also.
posted on 2/5/18
I said they aren't automatically guilty of neglect for being 50 metres away when the kids were sleeping at home.
..................
What you say and actual reality are two completely different things,.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
You did imply that it was common practice though, based on some vague report you'd read "at the time", apparently written by a Portuguese investigative reporter.
..............
Something no one else has ever seen as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's gonna be difficult to see as it didn't happen. Somebody has mixed up two things I said into one.
Firstly I said I remember reading a report years ago which had asked British holiday makers if they went out of the room and socialised whilst their children slept on the room. Many did.
Secondly I spoke about a report, I believe by a Portuguese investigative journalist who picked apart the leading investigator's book, written after he was kicked off the case.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by Clog Wearing Donkey (U1250)
posted 11 minutes ago
Facking hell, reading all of the last 6 pages and realise
TOOR = WINSTON
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
If presented with evidence to prove me wrong, I admit I'm wrong.
TOOR doesn't.
As for arguing for days and days on here about the same thing then yes, I'm rather stubborn - as are a lot of people on this forum... let's face it, it takes to to tango.
posted on 2/5/18
If presented with evidence to prove me wrong, I admit I'm wrong.
...............
No, Winston, you do not. You are a lying sack of crap.
posted on 2/5/18
Secondly I spoke about a report, I believe by a Portuguese investigative journalist who picked apart the leading investigator's book, written after he was kicked off the case.
...................
And yet you can't show us any quotes form the book that are incorrect.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Clog Wearing Donkey (U1250)
posted 11 minutes ago
Facking hell, reading all of the last 6 pages and realise
TOOR = WINSTON
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
If presented with evidence to prove me wrong, I admit I'm wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------
That's the funniest thing I have read on here for ages!
posted on 2/5/18
two*
posted on 2/5/18
This article has even more legs now Winston is here.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
You did imply that it was common practice though, based on some vague report you'd read "at the time", apparently written by a Portuguese investigative reporter.
..............
Something no one else has ever seen as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's gonna be difficult to see as it didn't happen. Somebody has mixed up two things I said into one.
Firstly I said I remember reading a report years ago which had asked British holiday makers if they went out of the room and socialised whilst their children slept on the room. Many did.
Secondly I spoke about a report, I believe by a Portuguese investigative journalist who picked apart the leading investigator's book, written after he was kicked off the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah fair enough, I was obviously talking about the first one.
posted on 2/5/18
Alexis The King Sanchez (U10026)
Funny, I see it keep popping up and it makes me laugh that I'm not involved.
I have no intention of getting involved!
It does prove, however, that the idea I'm the only one on this forum that argues the same point for hours/days is nonsense.
posted on 2/5/18
This article has even more legs now Winston is here.
.................
Not really. Winston has some of us on Filter because he keeps losing arguments with us.
The boy is a proper wimp.
posted on 2/5/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by HenrysCat (U3608)
posted 2 minutes ago
"She was put to sleep by her parents and then 'harms way' developed due to somebody going in and lifting her."
I surprised your level of pedantism and regular insistence that others consult a dictionary has allowed you to type this.
This is all about risk assessment - they, apparently, assessed that leaving their very young children in a room alone was safe, because they could see the outside of the building and they went over and checked them every half hour (that was a time mentioned here). Most other people assess this as an unacceptably high risk - ie. anything could happen in the other 27 mins (for example), because you can't actually see them, or hear them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree.
You seem to be arguing against me as if I were saying it wasn't a risk. I have already stated that I wouldn't do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are also arguing that there isn't a case for neglect - I am saying that their failure to come close to adequately assessing the risk is, pretty much, the very defintion of neglect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I am not. I said they aren't automatically guilty of neglect for being 50 metres away when the kids were sleeping at home. According to UK law anyhow and with the lack of a charge in Portugal, I'm guessing Portuguese law also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you said, "I think the McCann's have been punished enough, don't you?".
And a few disagreed, you should have been clearer that your real concern was the legal definition of "neglect" in UK and/or Portguese law earlier - could have saved pages of precious internet space.
Like you, I'm not a lawyer - but I would view "neglect" as a fairly general subjective term that would need to be tested in court on a case by case basis. From what I've read here there's a pretty good case (as I detailed above), but for various reasons a case will probably never be brought.
Page 19 of 22
18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22