Madeleine McCann

Dr. Dwayne said:
Thanks for the clarification.

'Reasonable means' could be leaving them in what you believe to be a secure environment and checking on them at regular intervals. I think apportioning any blame on the McCanns at this point is harsh.
Click to expand...


Again, it all boils down to what you consider these 'Reasonable means' to be. I think's that leaving 3 kids 3 years and younger in an unlocked holiday home isn't reasonable means, neither is allowing a 5 year old child to play outside unsupervised.

You clearly think that leaving babies with a 3 year old on there own while you go have a meal and a few drinks is adequately protecting kids but I fundamentally disagree and neither of us are going to change our opinion. I'm just glad more people think like me or there would be a hell of a lot more opportunity for peado's to snatch kids.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Oh man, the places I went without parental supervision when I was five. Different times, of course, but then again in 1981 I was the same age as Adam Walsh when he was abducted.
Click to expand...


We didn't know as much about sicko's when we were kids dude. People and parents weren't as aware of the risks. I grew up in the country and I was out and about from when I could walk all day every day (apart from school). I don't think my parents were bad parents, but looking back now they took massive risks with us by giving us the sort of freedom I'd never dream of giving my kids.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
Again, it all boils down to what you consider these 'Reasonable means' to be. I think's that leaving 3 kids 3 years and younger in an unlocked holiday home isn't reasonable means, neither is allowing a 5 year old child to play outside unsupervised.

You clearly think that leaving babies with a 3 year old on there own while you go have a meal and a few drinks is adequately protecting kids but I fundamentally disagree and neither of us are going to change our opinion. I'm just glad more people think like me or there would be a hell of a lot more opportunity for peado's to snatch kids.
Click to expand...

Not quite, I just believe that whatever a parent feels are reasonable means is their choice, after all they are the ones who have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Unlike a Baby P scenario where there is documented systematic neglect and abuse I'm not certain we have a right to judge the quality of their parenting and subsequent culpability in the loss of their child.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Not quite, I just believe that whatever a parent feels are reasonable means is their choice, after all they are the ones who have to live with the consequences of their decisions. Unlike a Baby P scenario where there is documented systematic neglect and abuse I'm not certain we have a right to judge the quality of their parenting and subsequent culpability in the loss of their child.
Click to expand...


You can't just say it's the parents choice. People need to know that leaving kids like that isn't deemed socially acceptable to prevent more people from doing so.

If I felt that reasonable means to protect my kids meant that I left my little lad wander the streets all day every day and something happened him you can fecking bet I'd be hounded for it. What they did was lesser than that, but it's still enough to warrant heavy criticism.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
We didn't know as much about sicko's when we were kids dude. People and parents weren't as aware of the risks. I grew up in the country and I was out and about from when I could walk all day every day (apart from school). I don't think my parents were bad parents, but looking back now they took massive risks with us by giving us the sort of freedom I'd never dream of giving my kids.
Click to expand...

I worded that poorly, what I meant to say at the end was that in '81 when Adam Walsh was taken we were the same age. feck, that still doesn't come out quite right. At the same time, though, when I was a kid parents were very concerend about our safety at Halloween, especially the candy checking, razor blade in the apples sort of thing. In all of my 39 years I've never once heard of kids being taken on Halloween or posioned candy or tainted apples. Seems strange to me now.

I agree with you about kids today, though. I'd be very protective of them, too. Different times, again, though.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
You can't just say it's the parents choice. People need to know that leaving kids like that isn't deemed socially acceptable to prevent more people from doing so.

If I felt that reasonable means to protect my kids meant that I left my little lad wander the streets all day every day and something happened him you can fecking bet I'd be hounded for it. What they did was lesser than that, but it's still enough to warrant heavy criticism.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it is, though. Unless there are laws guiding certain aspects of parental care, parents are free to mind their kids as they see fit. Not everyone acquiesces to socially accpetable norms, nor are they obliged to.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Unfortunately it is, though. Unless there are laws guiding certain aspects of parental care, parents are free to mind their kids as they see fit. Not everyone acquiesces to socially accpetable norms, nor are they obliged to.
Click to expand...


Nor should they be free from criticism when their poor choices lead directly to their kids being badly harmed.

Thankfully as a result of society moving on five year olds generally aren't allowed to run wild and surely that makes it harder for them to be abducted. In a similar way, hopefully people will learn from the McCann case that leaving kids like they did is so stupid that parents considering doing the same will not.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
Nor should they be free from criticism when their poor choices lead directly to their kids being badly harmed.

Thankfully as a result of society moving on five year olds generally aren't allowed to run wild and surely that makes it harder for them to be abducted. In a similar way, hopefully people will learn from the McCann case that leaving kids like they did is so stupid that parents considering doing the same will not.
Click to expand...

I think the criticism is harsh, personally. They've been through plenty already.

I saw a documentary a while back where a single mother left her young son at home alone nightly because she is poor and can't afford childcare but still needs to work in order to house and feed her son. Were he to be abducted and never found would people be as critical of her? She has hard choices to make but leaving her son at home alone is surely less risky than having no money, no home and no food. I think there's a lot to the McCann case that leads to the criticism; in particular their social status and the fact that Maddie and her abductor have not been found. With that in mind I do wonder if some of that criticism (not necessarily yours) is down to suspicion that the McCanns are directly responsible for her disappearance.
 
The difference between that woman and the McCanns is she had no real choice while they went out for pleasure.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
The difference between that woman and the McCanns is she had no real choice while they went out for pleasure.
Click to expand...

Certainly. I was looking to point out that moderately different circumstances would probably generate more sympathy or at least less criticism in an otherwise similar scenario.
 
From my reading of this thread, I don't think anybody has said that, based on this tragic incident, the McCanns are terrible parents, deserve to be flogged etc. What we are saying is that, on this occasion, they failed in their responsibility to their children, and that failure resulted in the abduction of their daughter.
 
Reading opinions on what does or does not constitute neglect of two and three year old children has been educational.

In the UK anyone that wants to teach or look after kids has to pass CRB checks. I think I would add a theory test to that, something akin to the driving test one, with multiple choice questions, but about childcare issues. A few might fail of course, and be barred from teaching or childcare. And rightly so.
 
Ciderman90210 said:
Or perhaps that tourists are more likely to become the victims of crime than locals?

It's not racist, it's just common sense that you have to be more wary of things in unfamiliar surroundings. Tourists are frequently seen as easy targets. The same would go for a Portuguese family visiting the UK.
Click to expand...

Tourist are more likely to be victims of this sort of crime? Really? I suspect the figures would show that they are less likely to be victims of crime in many places and even when it didn't the sort of crime would be drunken fights and getting short changed when changing cash and not having your kid kidnapped by paedos.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
If under the circumstances I hypothesised that you wouldn't apportion any blame to a parent who left kids for days on end there really is no point in talking to you about this because you are totally off your rocker.
Click to expand...

I said that it was irrelevant to the crime and nothing about your need to aportion blame for a scenario (that has nothing to do with this case). The McCanns will beat themselves up enough for life and don't need a self rightious mob to do it for them while ignoring the real crime.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
It turns out my question was relevant as Wibble confirmed that even if they left the kids for a few days they still wouldn't shoulder any of the burden.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I said. I said it wasn't relevant to the crime.

As for the drink driving analogy, think of it more that they were a little tipsy and hit a car that was on the wrong side of the road. If they hadn't been tipsy they would have avoided the accident but the main fault was the other lunatic.

That's pretty much exactly what this is like.
Click to expand...

No it isn't because if you drive drunk and have an accident where better sober reactions would have avoided the crash this is entirely foreseeable. Getting your child kidnapped from a room 50m away isn't.

A negligent terrible style of parenting.
Click to expand...

I was a bit too paranoid to leave my son in this way but there were many times he would be asleep in my house further away than this with the house open AND I had a drink. If a kidnapper had taken him I don't think this would have been in any way my fault.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
I worded that poorly, what I meant to say at the end was that in '81 when Adam Walsh was taken we were the same age. feck, that still doesn't come out quite right. At the same time, though, when I was a kid parents were very concerend about our safety at Halloween, especially the candy checking, razor blade in the apples sort of thing. In all of my 39 years I've never once heard of kids being taken on Halloween or posioned candy or tainted apples. Seems strange to me now.

I agree with you about kids today, though. I'd be very protective of them, too. Different times, again, though.
Click to expand...

Although times haven't actually changed much. We just used to ignore all sorts of stuff like sexual abuse. We are just more aware and therefore more paranoid (justified and unjustified). Humans are also rubbish at judging comparative risk.
 
Wibble said:
That isn't what I said. I said it wasn't relevant to the crime.



No it isn't because if you drive drunk and have an accident where better sober reactions would have avoided the crash this is entirely foreseeable. Getting your child kidnapped from a room 50m away isn't.



I was a bit too paranoid to leave my son in this way but there were many times he would be asleep in my house further away than this with the house open AND I had a drink. If a kidnapper had taken him I don't think this would have been in any way my fault.
Click to expand...


Of course it's foreseeable. I wouldn't leave my child in those circumstances because I'd be worried about something like that happening. In other words it's foreseeable.
 
We stayed in a hotel once with the (small) kids in an adjoining room. They gave you a baby alarm so you could listen in while having dinner in the restaurant downstairs - we didn't get past the first course, it was just too uncomfortable.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
Of course it's foreseeable. I wouldn't leave my child in those circumstances because I'd be worried about something like that happening. In other words it's foreseeable.
Click to expand...

You would? Why? Maybe after the McCanns I suppose.

But there are lots of foreseeable reasons not to leave them alone, injury mainly, but kidnapping?
 
Wibble said:
You would? Why? Maybe after the McCanns I suppose.

But there are lots of foreseeable reasons not to leave them alone, injury mainly, but kidnapping?
Click to expand...


Someone coming into the kids and doing something would be foremost on my mind and the number one reason I wouldn't do what they did. I was a parent long before this case. It may not be the biggest risk, but it would be my biggest fear.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
Someone coming into the kids and doing something would be foremost on my mind and the number one reason I wouldn't do what they did. I was a parent long before this case. It may not be the biggest risk, but it would be my biggest fear.
Click to expand...

Yet you'd let your 8 year old cycle round the block.

Not that I'm saying you shouldn't, just that on the off chance something happened people, who don't know much about you, your child or the exact circumstances could easily point the finger at you for taking the risk of letting an 8 year old out on their own, if they were that way inclined.
 
Eyepopper said:
Yet you'd let your 8 year old cycle round the block.

Not that I'm saying you shouldn't, just that on the off chance something happened people, who don't know much about you, your child or the exact circumstances could easily point the finger at you for taking the risk of letting an 8 year old out on their own, if they were that way inclined.
Click to expand...


My position on this would be that letting my son out on his own would be a learning experience and part of their development. My son is 8 years old. Right now, he has more freedom in the distance he can go from home than when he was a couple of years younger. This is part of him acting responsible and maturely, and the independence is something he needs to experience to learn.

I would not have left my kids alone in a hotel room/apartment - certainly not when he was 3 years old. That is entirely different to allowing your child to gradually gain some independence, trust and responsibility. You increase the scope your child has to roam/play in accordance with their age/maturity. Leaving them alone at 3 years old is a purely selfish act.

My first concern probably would not have been someone abducting them, but it may have been what happens in the event of a fire? Granted, not the most likely scenario, but surely one of the responsibilities of parents is to consider potential dangers and act accordingly.

Also, I would be conscious of the fact that my child would be sleeping in a room that was foreign to them and therefore may not feel as secure as when they are at their home. I do not run to them at the first sound of a whimper, but I would not let one of them scream and cry for 75 minutes, like Madeline supposedly did the night before she disappeared.
 
Eyepopper said:
Yet you'd let your 8 year old cycle round the block.

Not that I'm saying you shouldn't, just that on the off chance something happened people, who don't know much about you, your child or the exact circumstances could easily point the finger at you for taking the risk of letting an 8 year old out on their own, if they were that way inclined.
Click to expand...
3 vs 8. Monster difference.

Local area with dozens of neighbours and other kids watching out vs apartment in a foreign country where no one trusted could see the child.

Awake on a bicycle vs asleep possibly doped to keep from waking.

Broad daylight vs night time.


Two completely incomparable situations pops. I still worry when they are not home, but I'll do that all their lives. You weigh up reasonable risk vs learning life skills such as some independence and make your decision.

The McCanns only reason for making their poor decision was a selfish one.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
3 vs 8. Monster difference.

Local area with dozens of neighbours and other kids watching out vs apartment in a foreign country where no one trusted could see the child.

Awake on a bicycle vs asleep possibly doped to keep from waking.

Broad daylight vs night time.


Two completely incomparable situations pops. I still worry when they are not home, but I'll do that all their lives. You weigh up reasonable risk vs learning life skills such as some independence and make your decision.

The McCanns only reason for making their poor decision was a selfish one.
Click to expand...


Exactly my point - although you managed to make it using half the words I did!
 
Irwinwastheking said:
Someone coming into the kids and doing something would be foremost on my mind and the number one reason I wouldn't do what they did. I was a parent long before this case. It may not be the biggest risk, but it would be my biggest fear.
Click to expand...

In that case you should never , ever allow your kids to be alone with ANYONE, anyplace, at anytime. Not even your closest friends or relatives, maybe not even your spouse or even leaving one of your kids who is old enough to watch the others. Not baby-sitters, not teachers, not sports coaches, not religious leaders, etc. There have been cases of kids getting taken while their parents slept in the next room. Even had one case locally where a child was playing in her front yard, the mother was watching out the window, turned away for a few minutes and the child was gone. A story recently about a 40 or 50 year old murder case in which a girl was kidnapped while her friend watched, two girls playing just yards away from both their homes.

Now myself, would I have left my kids like they did? No. But the point of my post is that if that really is the thing foremost in your mind, then given who is most likely to do harm to children, you better be on your guard all the time because there are more cases involving the situations/people I mention then there are ones similar to the McCann case.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
3 vs 8. Monster difference.

Local area with dozens of neighbours and other kids watching out vs apartment in a foreign country where no one trusted could see the child.

Awake on a bicycle vs asleep possibly doped to keep from waking.

Broad daylight vs night time.

Two completely incomparable situations pops. I still worry when they are not home, but I'll do that all their lives. You weigh up reasonable risk vs learning life skills such as some independence and make your decision.

The McCanns only reason for making their poor decision was a selfish one.
Click to expand...

Indeed. To be nitpicky the twins left alone were just two years old. How you develop older children is an interesting subject, but a bit of a red herring when considering what constitutes the neglect of two-year olds.
 
JustAFan said:
In that case you should never , ever allow your kids to be alone with ANYONE, anyplace, at anytime. Not even your closest friends or relatives, maybe not even your spouse or even leaving one of your kids who is old enough to watch the others. Not baby-sitters, not teachers, not sports coaches, not religious leaders, etc. There have been cases of kids getting taken while their parents slept in the next room. Even had one case locally where a child was playing in her front yard, the mother was watching out the window, turned away for a few minutes and the child was gone. A story recently about a 40 or 50 year old murder case in which a girl was kidnapped while her friend watched, two girls playing just yards away from both their homes.

Now myself, would I have left my kids like they did? No. But the point of my post is that if that really is the thing foremost in your mind, then given who is most likely to do harm to children, you better be on your guard all the time because there are more cases involving the situations/people I mention then there are ones similar to the McCann case.
Click to expand...


Weighing up the risks and making an informed decision to not destroy a child with fear and isolation and leaving them alone in a holiday apartment are two different things.

I don't see why yourself and pops are trying to turn what's a perfectly rational normal parenting decision into some loony comparison with what the Mccanns did. It's utter nonsense.

I get that the biggest risk to kids is in the family home, abuse from a parent or a relative. I can be 100% certain one of those things isn't happening and as we live miles from any family and rarely see them let alone be in a position of danger we remove most of the second risk. As for kids at sports, all the clubs my kids belong to have performed Garda Vetting on the trainers. I know this for a fact because I have been heavily involved in the clubs. Teachers are vetted too, and the likely risk they pose is less than the benefits gained by taking the chance.

Certain risks have to be taken to enjoy a normal life for the kids and not to have them in a cotton wool cocoon which would do them no good at all. That argument you are making is bullshit.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
Weighing up the risks and making an informed decision to not destroy a child with fear and isolation and leaving them alone in a holiday apartment are two different things.

I don't see why yourself and pops are trying to turn what's a perfectly rational normal parenting decision into some loony comparison with what the Mccanns did. It's utter nonsense.

I get that the biggest risk to kids is in the family home, abuse from a parent or a relative. I can be 100% certain one of those things isn't happening and as we live miles from any family and rarely see them let alone be in a position of danger we remove most of the second risk. As for kids at sports, all the clubs my kids belong to have performed Garda Vetting on the trainers. I know this for a fact because I have been heavily involved in the clubs. Teachers are vetted too, and the likely risk they pose is less than the benefits gained by taking the chance.

Certain risks have to be taken to enjoy a normal life for the kids and not to have them in a cotton wool cocoon which would do them no good at all. That argument you are making is bullshit.
Click to expand...


You made a comment about what is foremost in your mind and I simply pointed out that if that is truly foremost then there are many other things you need to be worrying about that are likely threats to your childs safety, as I stated in the 2nd paragraph, but I guess you did not bother to read or understand it.

But it is ok, it is the internet afterall.
 
JustAFan said:
You made a comment about what is foremost in your mind and I simply pointed out that if that is truly foremost then there are many other things you need to be worrying about that are likely threats to your childs safety, as I stated in the 2nd paragraph, but I guess you did not bother to read or understand it.

But it is ok, it is the internet afterall.
Click to expand...


And as I clearly stated in that post I do worry and have taken all reasonable precautions to avoid these risks you listed.

Leaving a child alone is taking unnecessary risk as opposed to taking reasonable precaution.
 
What would people's thoughts have been had they left the kids, like they did, but rather than one of them being kidnapped one of the kids woke up and harmed themselves/fell off the balcony/choked on something.

Who would be attributed with the blame/neglect in that scenario?
 
b82REZ said:
What would people's thoughts have been had they left the kids, like they did, but rather than one of them being kidnapped one of the kids woke up and harmed themselves/fell off the balcony/choked on something.

Who would be attributed with the blame/neglect in that scenario?
Click to expand...


Of course it would go straight to the parents, but they'd actually be no more guilty than they are in what really happened.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
Of course it would go straight to the parents, but they'd actually be no more guilty than they are in what really happened.
Click to expand...

So why this grey area about their involvement (directly or indirectly) with Maddie's diappearance? We cannot ignore their shortcomings in one scenario but accept they would have been found guilty of negligence had the event played out differently.

*This is not aimed at you I've agreed with a lot of what you've said in this thread.
 
b82REZ said:
So why this grey area about their involvement (directly or indirectly) with Maddie's diappearance? We cannot ignore their shortcomings in one scenario but accept they would have been found guilty of negligence had the event played out differently.

*This is not aimed at you I've agreed with a lot of what you've said in this thread.
Click to expand...


I suppose in this instance, the fact there is someone with much much more blame (ie the kidnapper) some people are reluctant to assign any blame to the parents for their part.
 
Irwinwastheking said:
I suppose in this instance, the fact there is someone with much much more blame (ie the kidnapper) some people are reluctant to assign any blame to the parents for their part.
Click to expand...

But law doesn't work like that.

I feel a lot of these people are taking how they would feel in this scenario and how they wouldn't want to answer questions of their negligence that lead to a kidnapping/accident/death of their child.

Despite what people think in terms of their direct involvement, they should answer for their negligence that lead to her disappearance. Too many people claim the "do you not think they know" or "her disapperance is penalty enough", but ignore the fact they were guilty of neglect.
 
b82REZ said:
But law doesn't work like that.

I feel a lot of these people are taking how they would feel in this scenario and how they wouldn't want to answer questions of their negligence that lead to a kidnapping/accident/death of their child.

Despite what people think in terms of their direct involvement, they should answer for their negligence that lead to her disappearance. Too many people claim the "do you not think they know" or "her disapperance is penalty enough", but ignore the fact they were guilty of neglect.
Click to expand...


I'd say (uneducated opinion) in a legal sense that they probably would have no case to answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.