I'm letting on?Thing is, I think that kind of "neglect" is more common than you're letting on.
Bollocks. I know what's best for my boys, I don't need guidelines it's called common sense and responsibility.I remember reading suggested guidelines over how long you can leave children at whatever age alone for. For years 3+ it said they could be left alone for around an hour and a half, depending on how safe the environment is. Obviously the McCanns didn't assess the environment properly and also left the two year old twins alone too but still, they were a 45 second walk away and checked on them within that time period. These were supposedly safe guidlines too, I can imagine a lot of parents pushing those boundries if they felt the area was safe. Poor judgement certainly but I think a lot of people would fail that standard of "neglect" at some point.
Edit: I should point out that was talking about a home environment, such as kids in a seperate room in the house, rather than a holiday resort. Again, they were definitely wrong and stupid, I just suspect other parents have done the same.
What difference does that make?When do people think is an acceptable age to leave kids alone for this sort of amount of time?
45seconds? I don't buy that.True but the McCanns were supposed to be a 45 second walk away though, that's not that far.
How can it be normal?It wasn't right but it doesn't strike me as so unusual that it's suspicious, just normal stupidity.
A lot depends on the environment. When me and my younger brother and sister were kids (around 8, 6 and 4) our parents would let us go wandering for hours and hours in the fields and woods near our house, over a pretty massive area. That probably sounds fairly dodgy but the truth is we lived in a ridiculously safe place. At the end of the day parents have to make their own judgement based on the environment they're in, the McCanns were just pretty crap at it.
You seem very naive about it all. Whether or not the world is a dangerous place, it's parental instincts not to leave your kids alone. Locked in a room. While you go eat dinner and have a jolly good time.I'm 24 but I was lucky enough to grow up in an area where you could still do that. During the summer we'd be out until it got dark and the bats came out. That's a proper quality childhood, shame there are fewer and fewer places you can do that. Still, a lot of my little cousins in rural areas in Ireland are the same, it hasn't totally gone.
More media coverage. And that's a good thing.Is it really the case that there are more paedophile types around nowadays...or just more media coverage of them?
The Smith family, from Ireland are returning to their apartment after a night out. As they walk, they pass a man carrying a child in his arms. The man averts his eyes from them to signal that he does not wish to speak.
Four months later, back in Ireland, the Smith family are watching TV. They see the McCanns return to the UK and observe Gerry McCann alight the aeroplane and walk across the tarmac with a sleeping Sean in his arms.
The father, Martin Smith, is shocked. He recognises the walking style and the way the child is being held against the shoulder.
It is exactly like the man he saw on the streets of Praia da Luz, four months earlier
1. "You're letting on" was just a turn of phrase. I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't use your common sense and resposibility, just that different people will naturally be more or less cautious. There isn't one universally accepted notion of common sense, there are a lot of grey areas.I'm letting on?
Bollocks. I know what's best for my boys, I don't need guidelines it's called common sense and responsibility.
45seconds? I don't buy that.
Besides it's clearly too much, right?
How can it be normal?
You seem very naive about it all. Whether or not the world is a dangerous place, it's parental instincts not to leave your kids alone. Locked in a room. While you go eat dinner and have a jolly good time.
Really? Because it suggests I'm hiding something, or 'fudging the figures' as they say.1. "You're letting on" was just a turn of phrase.
Leaving children alone isn't a grey area. At all.I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't use your common sense and resposibility, just that different people will naturally be more or less cautious. There isn't one universally accepted notion of common sense, there are a lot of grey areas.
45 seconds is bollocks. Even if not, it's clearly too long.2. 45 seconds is what I read in the reports. No, I don't think it was right, just that it wasn't as far as it seems.
It's not normal to think "oh I'll leave my kids alone whilst I go out for dinner" though is it? I certainly hope not!3. When I said it was normal I meant that it's believable that they could have been that stupid without it being as sign of any long term neglect or a cover of some kind.
Well no, actually this isn't mere "irresponsible" behaviour, it's neglect. It's not about being perfect, it's not about making a mistake, it's about leaving your children alone whilst you piss off out for dinner.4. Actually I think I'm being the opposite of naive. I'm saying that no parent on the planet is perfect or always does the right thing. Parents can be irresponsible idiots like anyone else and at some point every parent will do something stupid, wrong or that goes against common sense. Luckily most parents don't get punished for their stupidity, while the McCanns did.
I think it was later proven that Gerry McCann was still in the restaurant when that guy was spotted.Never really paid too much attention to this particular conspiracy theory, but worth posting this that i saw on another site a while back.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id162.html
There is no grey area when it comes to leaving children by themselves.1. "You're letting on" was just a turn of phrase. I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't use your common sense and resposibility, just that different people will naturally be more or less cautious. There isn't one universally accepted notion of common sense, there are a lot of grey areas.
2. 45 seconds is what I read in the reports. No, I don't think it was right, just that it wasn't as far as it seems.
3. When I said it was normal I meant that it's believable that they could have been that stupid without it being a sign of any long term neglect or a cover of some kind.
4. Actually I think I'm being the opposite of naive. I'm saying that no parent on the planet is perfect or always does the right thing. Parents can be irresponsible idiots like anyone else and at some point every parent will do something stupid, wrong or that goes against common sense. Luckily most parents don't get punished for their stupidity, while the McCanns did.
If they had sedated Maddie and she was killed by accident, would his motive for covering,to save his own neck and his wife's.What would Gerry McCann's motive be anyway? That makes no sense to me.
1. "You're letting on" was just a turn of phrase. I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't use your common sense and resposibility, just that different people will naturally be more or less cautious. There isn't one universally accepted notion of common sense, there are a lot of grey areas.
2. 45 seconds is what I read in the reports. No, I don't think it was right, just that it wasn't as far as it seems.
3. When I said it was normal I meant that it's believable that they could have been that stupid without it being a sign of any long term neglect or a cover of some kind.
4. Actually I think I'm being the opposite of naive. I'm saying that no parent on the planet is perfect or always does the right thing. Parents can be irresponsible idiots like anyone else and at some point every parent will do something stupid, wrong or that goes against common sense. Luckily most parents don't get punished for their stupidity, while the McCanns did.
Ha, what would I think you're hiding? It was just a clumsy turn of phrase. I was arguing with your point, not suggesting you're lying.Really? Because it suggests I'm hiding something, or 'fudging the figures' as they say.
So you'd never leave kids of any age alone for any period, no matter what the circumstances? You think parents never do that?Leaving children alone isn't a grey area. At all.
Agree it's too far regardless, it just isn't quite as bad as it sounds when people say "they left them while they went out to a restaurant".45 seconds is bollocks. Even if not, it's clearly too long.
What they did wasn't normal but it was within a believable range of stupidity. It doesn't seem implausible to me that they could be that stupid.It's not normal to think "oh I'll leave my kids alone whilst I go out for dinner" though is it? I certainly hope not!
I don't see why this can't count as serious irresponsibility or a terrible mistake. It isn't like there is some massive tangible line between that and neglect, it's more like different positions on the same scale of stupidity.Well no, actually this isn't mere "irresponsible" behaviour, it's neglect. It's not about being perfect, it's not about making a mistake, it's about leaving your children alone whilst you piss off out for dinner.
You are not being the opposite of naive there.
I suppose if shit goes wrong then all sorts of events could unfold but it all seems unreal to me.If they had sedated Maddie and she was killed by accident, would his motive for covering,to save his own neck and his wife's.
He would not want his life shattered and the lives of his wife and the other kids, so they made up the kidnap story.
So you are arguing that the kids should have been left alone?Ha, what would I think you're hiding? It was just a clumsy turn of phrase. I was arguing with your point, not suggesting you're lying.
I am a parent, I have two boys aged 2 and 4. Ask me what I do.So you'd never leave kids of any age alone for any period, no matter what the circumstances? You think parents never do that?
But it clearly is that bad! It might have escaped your attention, but something happened...Agree it's too far regardless, it just isn't quite as bad as it sounds when people say "they left them while they went out to a restaurant".
It's neglect. Do you disagree?What they did wasn't normal but it was within a believable range of stupidity. It doesn't seem implausible to me that they could be that stupid.
Are you kidding me? Again, has it not escaped your attention what actually happened?I don't see why this can't count as serious irresponsibility or a terrible mistake. It isn't like there is some massive tangible line between that and neglect, it's more like different positions on the same scale of stupidity.
I think it was later proven that Gerry McCann was still in the restaurant when that guy was spotted.
That was referring back to the first post I quoted where Redlambs said kids should never be left alone, even for a few minutes. There are occasions where kids do get left alone like that. A case of emergency, for example. Or, as I said in other posts, like when my parents might have run over to my neighbour's house for something while I was asleep. I'm not saying it's right, just that it does sometimes happen. I wouldn't say my parents were guilty of neglect on that occasion, just irresponsibility.What is this Gray area you are talking about?
You have young kids, you don't leave them on their own ever, its not hard is it.
I am not on about when you are in the house and they are asleep in another room, I mean leaving them to go out.
You do not leave the three year old alone, for any period of time, ever!So you'd never leave kids of any age alone for any period, no matter what the circumstances? You think parents never do that?
I agree it does seem unreal, but there is a lot of people saying it and who knows what you would be prepared to do to save you way of life.I suppose if shit goes wrong then all sorts of events could unfold but it all seems unreal to me.
That was referring back to the first post I quoted where Redlambs said kids should never be left alone, even for a few minutes. There are occasions where kids do get left alone like that. A case of emergency, for example. Or, as I said in other posts, like when my parents might have run over to my neighbour's house for something while I was asleep. I'm not saying it's right, just that it does sometimes happen. I wouldn't say my parents were guilty of neglect on that occasion, just irresponsibility.
Where did I say that?That was referring back to the first post I quoted where Redlambs said kids should never be left alone, even for a few minutes. There are occasions where kids do get left alone like that. A case of emergency, for example. Or, as I said in other posts, like when my parents might have run over to my neighbour's house for something while I was asleep. I'm not saying it's right, just that it does sometimes happen. I wouldn't say my parents were guilty of neglect on that occasion, just irresponsibility.
Exactly. It's far from "normal" and anyone who thinks otherwise should seriously have a long look at themselves, preferably before they have kids.You do not leave the three year old alone, for any period of time, ever!
I am not talking about sleeping in her own room, or watching TV while you are washing up, I am talking about leavinh her alone, in an apartment while the parents went out to dinner. It is neglect, it is irresponsible and it is piss poor parenting.
In that scenario, you pick a family friendly restaurant and you all go out to dinner, for god sake if I have left something in my car which is 20 seconds from my flat I pick my daughter up and we go togeather, the thought of leaving her alone for an hour and a half is disgusting to me!
Of course not. Leaving the kids alone like that was a terrible idea, they should never have done it. They were 100% wrong to do it, no question.So you are arguing that the kids should have been left alone?
Yep, I assumed you were a parent. I was asking if you'd never leave them alone under any possible circumstance, even for a few minutes? Or if you think no parents bar the McCanns would ever do that?I am a parent, I have two boys aged 2 and 4. Ask me what I do.
As bad as, say, leaving the kids behind while you drive to a restaurant that's a few miles away? I think it's more understandable than that scenario, though again that isn't to say they weren't 100% wrong to do it.But it clearly is that bad! It might have escaped your attention, but something happened...
Depends, what's your definition of "neglect"? What do you see as the difference between neglect and a really stupid mistake or really irresponsible parenting? I'm saying they're just different degrees of the same thing. Usually I'd associate neglect with a pattern of bad parenting over an extended period though.It's neglect. Do you disagree?
So it's neglect because the child went missing? If the child had been fine would it still have been neglect? I think what they did was really stupid, regardless of whether the child had gone missing or not.Are you kidding me? Again, has it not escaped your attention what actually happened?
Absolutely none. I am merely curious.What difference does that make?
So you aren't arguing against me then? Make up your mind!Of course not. Leaving the kids alone like that was a terrible idea, they should never have done it. They were 100% wrong to do it, no question.
My boys have never been left alone in my house for any amount of time. And that's my house, not a hotel room.Yep, I assumed you were a parent. I was asking if you'd never leave them alone under any possible circumstance, even for a few minutes? Or if you think no parents bar the McCanns would ever do that?
How is it any worse? Again, has it escaped your attention what happened?As bad as, say, leaving the kids behind while you drive to a restaurant that's a few miles away? I think it's more understandable than that scenario, though again that isn't to say they weren't 100% wrong to do it.
Bollocks, absolute bollocks. If you think my definition of neglect is wrong, then I seriously hope you learn before you have kids of your own! In fact, I think your attitude will change when you have them, and if it doesn't I sincerely hope this sort of thing never happens to them.Depends, what's your definition of "neglect"? What do you see as the difference between neglect and a really stupid mistake or really irresponsible parenting? I'm saying they're just different degrees of the same thing. Usually I'd associate neglect with a pattern of bad parenting over an extended period though.
I'm saying it's neglect. Regardless. It's you who is making the difference between circumstances, not me.So it's neglect because the child went missing? If the child had been fine would it still have been neglect? I think what they did was really stupid, regardless of whether the child had gone missing or not.
Absolutely none. I am merely curious.
Indeed. Far too young!I assume you have no kids of your own yet matey?
Indeed. Far too young!
What made me curious was that a few of the comments I've seen gave me the impression that perhaps my parents decisions, in my younger years, would fall foul of the standards of some posters, in this thread.
If they had sedated Maddie and she was killed by accident, would his motive for covering,to save his own neck and his wife's.
He would not want his life shattered and the lives of his wife and the other kids, so they made up the kidnap story.
In the first post of yours I quoted, where you said "when you go out and leave your kids alone, even for a few minutes, you greatly increase the chances of one of those things happening.". My point was a lot of parents would be guilty of neglect at some point in their lives if that's the standard. Look at Pauldy's post about the guy he takes care of two doors down. That's neglect by your standards, isn't it? My point is that what Pauldy did, while technically irresponsible, doesn't count as neglect. That's the grey area I was on about. Once you accept you can do something irresponsible without it quite being neglect then it comes down to the parents judgement.Where did I say that?
And if your parents left you alone whilst they went for dinner, and you were 3 years old, then I hate to break it to you but that's neglect.
This.It, of course, depends.
And when you say 'standards' then that makes it seem like I'm trying to set some kind of high bar. Well no, I just look after my boys properly, I fail to see how that's subjective. I don't leave them home alone at all, I take them with me when I have to go out no matter where and for what reason. Why, were you left alone for any period at a young age?
I don't remember my youngest years, too well, but I'm sure I was left alone for decent amounts of time, at 4. I was walking home from school alone and letting myself into an empty house at 6.It, of course, depends.
And when you say 'standards' then that makes it seem like I'm trying to set some kind of high bar. Well no, I just look after my boys properly, I fail to see how that's subjective. I don't leave them home alone at all, I take them with me when I have to go out no matter where and for what reason. Why, were you left alone for any period at a young age?
You are right it is very illogical.So he roamed the streets making no attempt to hide the dead body he was holding, and making no attempt to avoid being seen wandering the streets when he was meant to be at dinner? C'mon, its completely illogical.
He's not even holding his child in any particularly distinctive manner in that picture anyway, how many obviously different ways could he do it? Plus its really not the sort of thing the Irish family would remember, they probably saw someone and vaguely remembered that, but that's it, unless you make a specific effort to remember something happening on the periphery its really not going to register with you, hence why the e-fits don't really look alike.
Right, and that's true is it not?In the first post of yours I quoted, where you said "when you go out and leave your kids alone, even for a few minutes, you greatly increase the chances of one of those things happening.".
Yes. What's your point? You don't think it's neglect do you? Then just say it!My point was a lot of parents would be guilty of neglect at some point in their lives if that's the standard.
Point that out to me please.Look at Pauldy's post about the guy he takes care of two doors down. That's neglect by your standards, isn't it? My point is that what Pauldy did, while technically irresponsible, doesn't count as neglect. That's the grey area I was on about.
I don't accept that. Calling something 'irresponsible' or 'a mistake' doesn't take away from it's true nature. No matter how you want to justify what your parents did with you.Once you accept you can do something irresponsible without it quite being neglect then it comes down to the parents judgement.
7 years old wandering the streets? No knowledge of where they are? Are you kidding me? Of course that's neglect!Out of curiosity, imagine this: You have a seven year old son. Would you let him wander around for hours and hours with just a few neighbour children of the same age and younger? Absolutely zero parental supervision and without really knowing exactly where they are? Would you allow that under any circumstances, or would you say that's neglect?
I don't remember my youngest years, too well, but I'm sure I was left alone for decent amounts of time, at 4. I was walking home from school alone and letting myself into an empty house at 6.
Agree with this. The parents should have been prosecuted for neglect. I'm not saying they should have been sent to prison, a fine or caution would do to make the point, but on the telly today they were still saying 'We did nothing wrong'. Well yes you did, kids that young (there were two) shouldn't be left on their own just because you fancy a few drinks down the club.Would you leave your kids unattended at such a young age ?
I'm agreeing with you that the McCanns were really wrong to do what they did. I'm also agreeing that other parents do leave their children alone and are wrong to do so. I'm saying that it's harsh to call it neglect when, as you say, a lot of parents do it. To me neglect would be a sustained pattern of bad parenting, not infrequent incidents where they make a mistake. Kids who aren't being fed properly are being neglected. Kids who get left asleep for ten minutes while Pauldy runs down the road to help his neighbour aren't. By your standard most of the families I grew up with were severely neglected, which makes me think your definition is a bit absolute.So you aren't arguing against me then? Make up your mind!
My boys have never been left alone in my house for any amount of time. And that's my house, not a hotel room.
And I think a lot of parents do, and I think they are idiots. Disagree?
How is it any worse? Again, has it escaped your attention what happened?
Bollocks, absolute bollocks. If you think my definition of neglect is wrong, then I seriously hope you learn before you have kids of your own! In fact, I think your attitude will change when you have them, and if it doesn't I sincerely hope this sort of thing never happens to them.
I'm saying it's neglect. Regardless. It's you who is making the difference between circumstances, not me.
It was out for dinner that they went, but the point is the same and is correct.Agree with this. The parents should have been prosecuted for neglect. I'm not saying they should have been sent to prison, a fine or caution would do to make the point, but on the telly today they were still saying 'We did nothing wrong'. Well yes you did, kids that young (there were two) shouldn't be left on their own just because you fancy a few drinks down the club.
