McCanns to be charged?

[grumpyjambo]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/McCanns-may-be-charged.4130169.jp

 

Here's hoping.

[scottg71]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/McCanns-may-be-charged.4130169.jp

 

Here's hoping.

 

Your distrust of the McCanns is on a similar line as myself. Put them in the dock and see if one of them crack.

[portobellojambo1]

Neglect is good enough for me.

[Legend Claws]

I don't think they did it but I totally believe they should face neglect charges.

[EuanD]

I also agree with the neglect charges, I think this should have been done a long tim ago!

[felix]

Can anyone in the string-em-up brigade expalin WHY they should be charged ?

 

Because they broke they law ? - Don't think they did.

To Punish them ? - Too late for that.

As a lesson to others ? - They've made sure we're even more protective towards our children. - lesson served.

 

Am I missing something ?

It can't be revenge because no-one likes their media persona can it ?

[Craig R]

Can anyone in the string-em-up brigade expalin WHY they should be charged ?

 

Because they are at least partially if not completely responsible for the disappearance of their daughter?

 

They left three children, all under the age of 4, completely unattended in a hotel room in a foreign country while they got ****ed down the road with their mates. If they had been looking after their children instead of neglecting them then this wouldn't have happened.

[auldbauldfan]

Can anyone in the string-em-up brigade expalin WHY they should be charged ?

 

Becausthey broke e they law ? - Don't think they did.To Punish them ? - Too late for that.

As a lesson to others ? - They've made sure we're even more protective towards our children. - lesson served.

 

Am I missing something ?

It can't be revenge because no-one likes their media persona can it ?

 

 

If they did not break the law by leaving their kids while they went out boozing with their mates they have nothing to fear.

[Mr X]

Because they broke they law ? - Don't think they did.

 

Of course they did. Leaving underage children unnattended is against the law, everywhere. As you rightly say, they've suffered terribly but I'm of the opinion that they shouldn't get away with such neglect scot-free. Especially as it's been discovered that Madeline had complained of waking up scared the night or two before when they had left the children on their own. Yet, they did it again. Such scant disregard and arrogance should not go unpunished.

 

And no, not everyone does it. I've two children, we're going off on holiday soon and there's no way I'd ever leave them locked in an unfamiliar room whilst I go out on the lash. This isn't me being holier-than-thou. It's basic common sense.

[paulyjambo]

I hope they get done!

[Bigsmak]

I'll be first to say it on this thread. If it was a 19 year old hoodie wearing, big gold hoop earring polishing , posh spice idolising single mum who had left their child alone while they went to the pub. They would have been charged a the night of the incident.

 

Charge em,

 

What would have happened if there had been a fire and the kids that were left unattended had been burned to death. Would it have been the McCanns fault then for leaving them alone?

[felix]

What would have happened if there had been a fire and the kids that were left unattended had been burned to death. Would it have been the McCanns fault then for leaving them alone?

 

If there had been a fire, their parents would have more than likely reached them in time -one reason why it's difficult to make the "neglect" tag stick.

[felix]

Of course they did. Leaving underage children unnattended is against the law, everywhere. QUOTE]

 

No it's not.

[felix]

If it was a 19 year old hoodie wearing, big gold hoop earring polishing , posh spice idolising single mum who had left their child alone while they went to the pub. They would have been charged a the night of the incident. 

 

No crime against gold hoops, but going to the pub and leaving your kids "at risk" would rightly be punished.

[1874robbo]

What would have happened if there had been a fire and the kids that were left unattended had been burned to death. Would it have been the McCanns fault then for leaving them alone?

 

If there had been a fire, their parents would have more than likely reached them in time -one reason why it's difficult to make the "neglect" tag stick.

 

What a lot of mince you speak.

[jambovambo]

Of course they did. Leaving underage children unnattended is against the law' date=' everywhere.[/b'] QUOTE]

 

No it's not.

 

It's not in France, as far as I know.

 

 

and

 

 

He who is without sin, etc ... (don't like quoting from that bible thing, but that is a cracker).

[Boris]

If it was a 19 year old hoodie wearing, big gold hoop earring polishing , posh spice idolising single mum who had left their child alone while they went to the pub. They would have been charged a the night of the incident. 

 

No crime against gold hoops, but going to the pub and leaving your kids "at risk" would rightly be punished.

 

Pub, tapas bar...hey, let's not split hairs.

[jambovambo]

What would have happened if there had been a fire and the kids that were left unattended had been burned to death. Would it have been the McCanns fault then for leaving them alone?

 

If there had been a fire, their parents would have more than likely reached them in time -one reason why it's difficult to make the "neglect" tag stick.

 

If there had been a fire, and the parents were there in the flat, but p'ssed ...

 

(ring bells with anyone?)

 

Been there, done that.

[felix]

If there had been a fire, their parents would have more than likely reached them in time -one reason why it's difficult to make the "neglect" tag stick.

 

What a lot of mince you speak.

 

Care to elaborate ?

[1874robbo]

What a lot of mince you speak.

 

Care to elaborate ?

 

Self explanatory i would have thought.

[felix]

Pub, tapas bar...hey, let's not split hairs.

 

I'm assuming going to the pub involves considerable distance.

Her parents were able to see at least part of the apartment and were checking every 20 mins. or so .

That's why their situation is different to nipping into town for an hour or so to neck a few ales.

 

But back to the OP...no-ones explained what they should be charged with, under Portugese (or UK) law yet ?

[felix]

Care to elaborate ?

 

Self explanatory i would have thought.

 

Not really.

I was asking what they should be charged with under Portugese Law and how the law in this country is fairly grey, as to what constitutes neglect in this case.

How's that "mince".

[1874robbo]

I'm assuming going to the pub involves considerable distance.

Her parents were able to see at least part of the apartment and were checking every 20 mins. or so .

That's why their situation is different to nipping into town for an hour or so to neck a few ales.

 

But back to the OP...no-ones explained what they should be charged with, under Portugese (or UK) law yet ?

 

Parents can be prosecuted for wilful neglectif they leave a child alone or UNSUPERVISED 'in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health'.(children and young persons act 1933)

[i8hibsh]

With the exception of Vlad, my judge of character is usually spot on

 

Day 2 of the whole McCann seag I said "they are up to no good"

[Mr X]

If there had been a fire, their parents would have more than likely reached them in time

 

How do you know?

[Boris]

I'm assuming going to the pub involves considerable distance.

Her parents were able to see at least part of the apartment and were checking every 20 mins. or so .That's why their situation is different to nipping into town for an hour or so to neck a few ales.

 

But back to the OP...no-ones explained what they should be charged with, under Portugese (or UK) law yet ?

 

So they say...

 

Regardless of distance the fact remains they left their kids unsupervised whilst they were out of the building and one of the kids went missing.

 

It's tragic, but we have to take responsibility for our actions, or lack of them.

[felix]

Parents can be prosecuted for wilful neglectif they leave a child alone or UNSUPERVISED 'in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health'.(children and young persons act 1933)

 

The bit in bold is the key.

Leaving your child asleep - unattended - isn't usually construed as likely to cause suffering or injury.

[Boris]

The bit in bold is the key.

Leaving your child asleep - unattended - isn't usually construed as likely to cause suffering or injury.

 

It is if you are not in the same apartment/house/dwelling though!

 

And what you seem to be forgetting is that in this instance suffering and/or injury DID happen!

[I P Knightley]

With the exception of Vlad, my judge of character is usually spot on

 

Day 2 of the whole McCann seag I said "they are up to no good"

 

Are you actually my 87-year-old granny?

 

Did you suck in your falsers between those two sentences and then finish the second with your hands folded on your belly and gently nod your head, knowingly?

 

Have a Werthers

[felix]

So they say...

 

Regardless of distance the fact remains they left their kids unsupervised whilst they were out of the building and one of the kids went missing.

 

It's tragic, but we have to take responsibility for our actions, or lack of them.

 

They've taken responsibility for their actions and are on record as completely blaming themselves.

Everyone acknowledges they made a huge mistake, but at the same time you don't really expect a predatory paedo to climb in through your window and snatch your child - allegedly.

[Mr X]

They've taken responsibility for their actions and are on record as completely blaming themselves.

 

But would be they willing to accept some form of punishment for it? Or would they try and defend their actions if it came to court?

 

Like I say, they have suffered enormously, but I do think that their neglect needs to be acknowledged formally. Even if it's just a rap on the knuckles, I wouldn't have them sent to jail.

[felix]

It is if you are not in the same apartment/house/dwelling though!

 

No it's not.-

An assessment has to be made whether you left the child at risk . Checking every 20 minutes could be seen as responsible and not dissimilar to sitting in your garden whilst your children sleep at the front of the house. ?

 

Just because the worst happened in this case, doesn't prove "neglect" which is more often than not prosecuted as repeat pattern behaviour.The McCanns weren't in the habit of leaving their kids unattended; but all hypothetical - what should they be charged with under Portugese law ?

 

 

QUOTE]

[Eckauskas]

About time.

[felix]

But would be they willing to accept some form of punishment for it? Or would they try and defend their actions if it came to court?

 

Like I say, they have suffered enormously, but I do think that their neglect needs to be acknowledged formally. Even if it's just a rap on the knuckles, I wouldn't have them sent to jail.

 

How would you punish them further ?

[felix]

If there had been a fire' date=' their parents would have more than likely reached them in time

 

How do you know?

 

No-one knows for sure, however, if there was a fire ;

chances are someone would spot the smoke or hear the smoke alarm and one of the sprightly young docs. could sprint the 100 metres in less than half a minute.

Chances are they'd be safe.

[Boris]

No it's not.-

An assessment has to be made whether you left the child at risk . Checking every 20 minutes could be seen as responsible and not dissimilar to sitting in your garden whilst your children sleep at the front of the house. ?

 

Just because the worst happened in this case, doesn't prove "neglect" which is more often than not prosecuted as repeat pattern behaviour.The McCanns weren't in the habit of leaving their kids unattended; but all hypothetical - what should they be charged with under Portugese law ?

 

 

 

Hell of a difference between sitting in your garden and going 50-100m down the road to a bar where you can only see part of the property.

 

Checking every 20 mins? So they say.

 

 

Well, according to the article the Portuguese are talking of "abandonment", rather than neglect.

[felix]

Hell of a difference between sitting in your garden and going 50-100m down the road to a bar where you can only see part of the property.

QUOTE]

 

Not really, especially if your gardens 50-100m long

[Mr X]

How would you punish them further ?

 

A warning? A fine? I dunno, I've no idea what the law states on a case like this. I just believe that there actions, which I personally consider to be appalling, should not be allowed to go unpunished, or at the very least, officially acknowledged. You're right, they didn't expect someone to snatch their daughter, but at the same time one of them should've been there. There's no excuse.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think they had anything to do with her dissappearance.

[felix]

A warning? A fine? I dunno, I've no idea what the law states on a case like this. I just believe that there actions, which I personally consider to be appalling, should not be allowed to go unpunished, or at the very least, officially acknowledged. You're right, they didn't expect someone to snatch their daughter, but at the same time one of them should've been there. There's no excuse.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think they had anything to do with her dissappearance.

 

I agree with you but can't see the point in pursuing them further.

The max penalty they're facing - if the Portugese actually do prosecute - is 10 years . What would locking them up do, send out warning messages or protect their remaining kids ?

 

I'd just leave them alone.

[coppercrutch]

Anyone need a lesson in how to use the Quote system on here just ask, it seems we have a few in trouble....

 

[Boris]

Anyone need a lesson in how to use the Quote system on here just ask, it seems we have a few in trouble....

 

 

Can I quote you on that?

[Mr X]

I agree with you but can't see the point in pursuing them further.

The max penalty they're facing - if the Portugese actually do prosecute - is 10 years . What would locking them up do, send out warning messages or protect their remaining kids ?

 

I'd just leave them alone.

 

Agree, no point in jailing anyone. Stil get a nagging feeling that they're getting away with something that others wouldn't have.

[felix]

[html][quote name='coppercrutch']Anyone need a lesson in how to use the Quote system on here just ask, it seems we have a few in trouble.... 

[/quote][/html]

 

Spot On !

[Suspect Device]

would they have left ?10,000 in the apartment lying on a table ?

 

or would they have taken it with them as it was valuable and might have been stolen ?

 

how much would they have deemed a reasonable amount to leave lying around the apartment ?

 

what price your own child ?

[chester copperpot]

Jail's too good for them.

 

I'd prefer a public hanging for what they did. The only reason they've still got their other 2 kids is the employment that they do.

[Swimmer]

I cannot believe that anyone can justify their actions.

 

They left alone, in a foreign country three young, defensless children while they went out and lapped up the easy life.

 

We have no evidence that the poor wee girl was abducted by any predatory paedo or anyone else for that matter.

 

I have two young children and find it completely abhorrant that I would even entertain leving my kids alone as they did.

 

They failed that little girl and for that they should be punished just as any other crime would be. If that means 10 years imprisonment then that is 20 years too little for me.

 

Appalling, appalling dereliction of duty.

[Deek]

A lot of realism in another McCann thread as usual.

 

Some people need to get a grip.

[Beverley]

would they have left ?10,000 in the apartment lying on a table ?

 

or would they have taken it with them as it was valuable and might have been stolen ?

 

how much would they have deemed a reasonable amount to leave lying around the apartment ?

 

what price your own child ?

 

i said exactly the same in the last mccann thread.

 

you'd not leave 10K on a pub table and go to the loo without someone you trusted to watch over it, far less your own flesh and blood

 

 

no matter whther anyone thinks them guilty of murder, innocent and the victims of a tragic crime, the one thing that is absolute fact is that they are 100% responsible for the abduction of their daughter.

 

they left her, and her siblings alone in a foreign country to be abducted

 

its not as though she's wandered off, fallen out of their eyeline on the beach or anything innocent, they left toddlers alone, unsupervised for ANYTHING to happen to them.

 

oh, and the "checking every 20 mins claim" hasn't been proven 1 way or another as there are a lot of contrary, eyewitness reports, and conflicting stories as to how long they left it between check ups

 

at the end of the day, they left their kids alone, and anyone else would have been (rightly in my opinion) punished for it

[Deevers]

A warning? A fine? I dunno, I've no idea what the law states on a case like this. I just believe that there actions, which I personally consider to be appalling, should not be allowed to go unpunished, or at the very least, officially acknowledged. You're right, they didn't expect someone to snatch their daughter, but at the same time one of them should've been there. There's no excuse.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think they had anything to do with her dissappearance.

 

They have to live with the consequences of their actions everyday of their lives. Nothing anyone can do now will be any worse than the pain and mental torture that they are having to endure and will have to endure until the day they die.

 

Why would people wish to add to that heavy burden?

[inspector]

Just as a matter of interest, of the friends they were with, did any of them leave kids unattended? If so, should they be cited for neglect even although nothing happened to their children?