"Who would leave children that young alone?"

[brit1981]

not in a straight line as we keep being told the distance from tapas to apartment was.
if someone has a 20 metre garden that would still leave another 30 metres in the house thats nearly a 100 feet, not many houses I know in the UK that are 100 feet deep.

It was about fifty two metres as the crow flies, and about seventy five to walk (you can see this on google earth as well). I think in my home by the time I came from the middle of the garden, walked through the house, up the stairs and along to the bedroom i would have covered seventy five metres. But it is a moot point, because like it or not what they, their friends, and thousands of others who use listening services did is legal and not considered neglect in the courts.

 

[Donjeta]

You can word it as pejoratively as you like, its not going to change the fact that there is no legal age limit to leaving a child alone, and the nanny listening services which do just what you describe are common in holiday resorts all over Europe.

The McCanns did what the nanny listening services would have done. From the fact that neither they, nor the many hotels who follow the same practice, have ever been prosecuted you can reasonably assume their actions were not illegal.

No one ever gets prosecuted for not wearing a bicycle helmet here but it is actually illegal.

 

[brit1981]

Donjeta,
How have the mccanns lied about the distance they were. It is publicly available inormation how far the tapas bar was from the flat. And it doe snot matter what your parenting practices are, the law in Portugal and the Uk is nto base dupon those. You may disagree with our laws, but at the end of the day these listening services are legal.

 

[brit1981]

No one ever gets prosecuted for not wearing a bicycle helmet here but it is actually illegal.

In the Uk it is not. But the fact is what they did is not prohibited by law.

 

[Cappuccino]

No one ever gets prosecuted for not wearing a bicycle helmet here but it is actually illegal.

That doesn't mean the nanny listening services advertised and used all over European tourist resorts are illegal. You seem desparate to convince yourself that the McCanns broke the law, so maybe you could provide a link showing us which law they broke?

 

[Donjeta]

Donjeta,
How have the mccanns lied about the distance they were. It is publicly available inormation how far the tapas bar was from the flat. And it doe snot matter what your parenting practices are, the law in Portugal and the Uk is nto base dupon those. You may disagree with our laws, but at the end of the day these listening services are legal.

Read again. I didn't say they lied. I said if the distance of me being in my garden and them in their bar is even nearly the same thing then they lied. The meaning you were intended to gather from that was not that the McCanns are dishonest. It was to dispute your claim that it's all the same whether you're in the yard next to your home or at a bar 75 metres away.

If I walk 75 metres from my door through a gate and enter a neighbor's residence and only have auditory or visual contact with my residence every half an hour then it's a comparable situation.

***
Honestly, I think everybody should disagree with laws that do not require parents to take care of their babies.

 

[Cappuccino]

Honestly, I think everybody should disagree with laws that do not require parents to take care of their babies.

So do I, but disagreeing with the law as it stands is not the same thing as saying the McCann's actions were illegal.

Btw, I also think everybody should be repulsed by the thoughts that a child can't be asleep in her own bed in a hotel room without being safe. Negligent parents or not, there is no excuse for sneaking into a holiday apartment and taking a child.

 

[brit1981]

But why go on about the fact that Portugal and the UK have laws which you do not agree with? I do not agree with the gun laws in America, but I would not go onto a thread about a shooting in the US and go on about that in a what did the victim expect carrying a gun type way. There is disagreeing with something then there is claiming it is illegal because you disagree with it and/or it is illegal where one is based.

 

[Donjeta]

That doesn't mean the nanny listening services advertised and used all over European tourist resorts are illegal. You seem desparate to convince yourself that the McCanns broke the law, so maybe you could provide a link showing us which law they broke?

I don't know any Portuguese so I can't read their law sites, sorry.
However, I must assume that they do have a law against child neglect since it was discussed that the McCanns might face charges for child neglect. Apparently it carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in jail. They seemed worried and went to some trouble to deny their guilt these charges which was obviously completely redundant if it isn't even a crime to begin with to leave children alone and it's an established legal practice that a quick listen every half an hour is enough supervision.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rges-leaving-Madeleine-night-disappeared.html

The charge of abandonment carries a maximum ten-year jail sentence in Portugal, but only if prosecutors can prove the McCanns intended to neglect Madeleine.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...adeleine-night-disappeared.html#ixzz23WyQOoPF

(I know, we have banned MSM so ignore at will...) Apparently charges for leaving children alone are a definite possibility so it's not as legal as some might like but proving intentions might be where it gets sticky. I suppose it is OK in Portugal to neglect your children if you can convince it was accidental.


As for the UK law, I think this may be the applicable section:


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/23-24/12

1 Cruelty to persons under sixteen.E+W.(1)If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and [F1has responsibility for] any child or young person under that age, wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable— .
(a)on conviction on indictment, to a fine . . . F2 or alternatively, . . . F3, or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding [F4ten] years; .
(b)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F5£400] pounds, or alternatively, . . . , or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months. .

I am not a lawyer but I know something about children and in my way of thinking any toddlers who are abandoned to their own devices for long periods of time are exposed to the likelihood of unnecessary suffering. Anything can happen and frequently does to a baby without parental supervision. If nothing else, their distress when they wake up and find that they're alone is unnecessary suffering.

I guess the defense can argue about how likely it is to cause harm but eventually it's just a matter of time when something happens to children who are left alone. They may wake up and panic, they may wander out and have an accident, they may get sick and are not tended to in a prompt manner because the parents are out, there may be a fire and no one can help them... Or some sicko can come and get them and assault and ill-treat them before murdering them.

Or, you can argue that listening in once every 30 minutes isn't abandoning the children since you intend to come back. But every child psychology source about leaving children alone that I've seen says that it is not sufficient since toddlers are not really to be left alone at all.

 

[brit1981]

As for neglect in Portugal the article you quoted says if it is proven they nglected their child. that artcle could have talked about any crime, so saying that if found guilty of neglect they could have got a ten year term is pointless. There were never accused of the crime of neglect.
And it does not matter what you or I personally consider neglect, the courts in Portugal and the Uk do not regard the listening service type of care neglect. That is why hotels still offer the service.

 

[Donjeta]

Nothign new, really. Crimes against children have a history of going unprosecuted.

 

[brit1981]

Nothign new, really. Crimes against children have a history of going unprosecuted.

If it is not illegal, it is not a crime. Just because you personally consider something neglect does not mean the courts in other countries agree.

 

[Donjeta]

If the law says that wilfully exposing children to unnecessary suffering is a crime, then things that do exactly that are illegal.

 

[brit1981]

If the law says that wilfully exposing children to unnecessary suffering is a crime, then things that do exactly that are illegal.

Only if the courts consider a child left sleeping for half an hour to be a child exposed to suffering and they do not. The courts do not agree with this, at least not in Portugal and the UK, and in all EU countries that allow listening services. If you honestly believe this is against the law then call the police in these countries and report the hotels for offering listening services.

 

[Donjeta]

The facts speak for themselves imo. A child who is not exposed to suffering should be safe.

Was Madeleine safe and sound sleeping in her bed in her unlocked hotel room for half an hour? Or was she exposed to the danger of stranger abduction, among a ton of other things that could have happened to her? Surely if anything is unnecessary suffering being abducted is.

:cow:

Oh but it's rare and unlikely to be abducted so parents don't have to take care of their children if they don't want to.

 

[gord]

Gawd - promised myself not get involved in these circular discussions !!

Donjeta I am a bit confused on what you are saying - are you saying that it becomes illegal when something bad happens ,. ? ie if unneccesary suffering happens then it is child neglect.

So if I let my 12 year old walk to school and she is run over - is that child neglect as I have exposed her to unnecessary suffering.

Should Tia's Sharp mother be prosecuted now because allowing her to stay with the grandmother and boyfriend led to her death - ie it was not illegal but once the girl was killed then - it was ? Tia was still a child

Unless you stay with your child 24/7 - accidents or worse can happen unfortunaley. The police of both Portugal nor UK prosecuted the Mcanns for child neglect - their form of babysitting was deemed legal ....... what was illegal was the person or persons who took her - that is where I focuss my thoughts in this forum - trying to find out what happened - who dun it ? Nt demonising the parents does not help solve the mystery

 

[Cappuccino]

The facts speak for themselves imo. A child who is not exposed to suffering should be safe.

Was Madeleine safe and sound sleeping in her bed in her unlocked hotel room for half an hour? Or was she exposed to the danger of stranger abduction, among a ton of other things that could have happened to her? Surely if anything is unnecessary suffering being abducted is.

:cow:

Oh but it's rare and unlikely to be abducted so parents don't have to take care of their children if they don't want to.

That's flawed logic if ever I saw it. Parents all over Europe's holiday resorts use exactly the same child care arrangement as the McCann's did. And suddenly it becomes illegal when one child is abducted? Did it become illegal in Utah to leave a child sleeping in their bed in the same house as their parents after Elizabeth Smart was abducted? Did it become illegal not to stand over your sleeping child in California after Stephanie Crowe was murdered? How about the laws in Illinois - did they make it illegal to sleep upstairs in your house while your child is asleep on the couch downstairs? Riley Fox probably wouldn't be dead if she hadn't been left downstairs.

When exactly do people stop blaming the victims and start blaming the criminal?

 

[brit1981]

The facts speak for themselves imo. A child who is not exposed to suffering should be safe.

Was Madeleine safe and sound sleeping in her bed in her unlocked hotel room for half an hour? Or was she exposed to the danger of stranger abduction, among a ton of other things that could have happened to her? Surely if anything is unnecessary suffering being abducted is.

:cow:

Oh but it's rare and unlikely to be abducted so parents don't have to take care of their children if they don't want to.

Abduction it is not considered unreasonable to not consider abduction a risk, and that is the basis of all law in the UK, what is reasonable. In Portugal it would go even further and say they had to have intended that leaving her would have resulted in her abduction. If we made anythign where abduction could even unreasonably be seen as a risk we would ban children from doing most things. I think more children are abducted on the way to school or walking about with friends then from their beds. But we do not rush around arresting people who let ten year olds walk alone because it is not reasonable to assume they will be abducted. Do you think parents who let their child walk to school should be arrested because their child is at risk of abduction or harm coming to them?

Besides you can go on about it all you like, but the mccanns broke no law in Portugal and no law in the UK, and it really does not matter if it is illegal or considered negelct in other countries.

 

[fabgod]

I agree with you, the argument is pointless now, we are just going round and round, people having their own opinions and not seeing a reason to change that opinion.
All your points re the people that were taken are valid and tragic.
One point though, is that maybe, the parents in those cases had done pretty much everything to keep their children in a safe environment? I dont know if doors and windows were locked etc, each case will have its own specific traits.

The argument seems to come from the fact that the McCanns left their children out of sight, some distance away and in an unlocked apartment.
I hope and would expect, that they thought it was safe, we have all made mistakes in our lives, hopefully when we make these mistakes, the repercussions are not as tragic as the McCanns have suffered.

Lets keep our opinions, we have our reasons, we are most likely never going to change anyone elses opinion on here, why dont we be a bit more creative and try and sleuth the case?
(JMO IMO making it up as I go blah blah)

 

[brit1981]

may I suggest a timeline thread