In England the McCanns would be arrested

[LostPuppy]

Off the bat, I of course hope with all my heart that Madeleine is returned safely

But her "parents" are a disgrace. They left Madeleine and two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie sleeping in the apartment ON THEIR OWN. They had taken turns to return from the restaurant to check on their children.

Now hang on! In this country that is illegal, for very good reason.

Even if they 'checked on them' every five minutes that's plenty of time for one of the kids to wake up and try to go to the toilet and crack it's head open slipping on the bathroom floor, or something equally disastrous. They'd never hear the screaming from a bloody restaurant down the road!

Obviously it's unlikely, but I just cant comprehend the mentality of leaving three children under 3 alone on their own, ever, let alone at night in a foreign country!

but there are lots of things that other people do that I wouldn't do myself

we aren't lemmings

No the dog isn't the same bevcause actually they were taking measures to ensure safety- such as returning to the room every 30 minutes to check if she were OK, plus it was a situation that only became nasty because a deviant was added to the mix unbeknown to parents

Whereas keeping a dangerous dog is CHOOSING to add a deviant to the mix and taking step to procure rather than mediate the risk

IYSWIM

Agree PBW

I bet there are lots of things I do that others who do use holidays like MW would choose not to do (such as sit on my arse MN-ing forn a start, and considering home educating ds3)

I know for a fact its at least the third time this has been used on this thread, but...

let he who is without sin thrown the...

ah you know the rest

Quattrocento - I did refer to the NSPCC website, because I read it and I felt that it is unclear, as to what the law states and what as parents/carers you can be prosecuted for as wilful neglect.

I was amazed to see a woman I knew, had left her 3 month old baby while she went for a jog with her dog.

She really didn't see that her sleeping baby was at risk!

Sorry if this has been answered but I don't understand why the McCanns would need lawyers and money at this stage to pay legal fees?

Hey Peachy no one is throwing stones.

Incidentally, there are not many prosecutions for wilful neglect. Certainly not for one-off incidents.

kookaburra I am intrigued by this myself

why are lawyers needed at this time????

Someone mentioned the woman whose granddaughter was mauled by a dog she kept -horrible case. I also wondered why there was no outcry on the grandmother's behalf saying 'she has sufered enough, no punishment could be greater than that, she will live with the guilt for the rest of her life' when they employ that kind of sentiment for the McCanns?
Does feel like there is one judgement for the 'chavvy' rottwieler ownere, and anotehr for the Mark Warner-holidaying classes.

Qu, how can you say that...
This is what you quoted from someone who has just written that all the law says is you must not neglect children. Then he says about his ownn example, not the McCanns" Leaving children alone in this manner is not desirable, but parents have to balance the demands of life and will probably have to consider such issues regularly. A parent needs to ensure that children are safe if they are left alone. Leaving them for a short while, asleep, in a locked room with regular checks is acceptable. Leaving them for two hours, or with unlocked doors, is not".

He says unacceptable. He does not say illegal and he is writing about his example not that couple so I still don't see why you think that person who was trying to give his interpretation of an ACt that just says you must not neglect children and doesn't elaborate has said what the McCann's did is illegal. How could anyone know that as the law is so vague? I think no way is it illegal even having read his article and his views.

wotz, at least she took the dog with her...

countless things we do might damage children from bottle feeding to not co-sleeping with them. It's just about where you draw the legal line and here the McCanns drew it the right side of the law in my view

I think lawyers are already involved. Didn't the parents fly them in from the UK?

The question is - who's paying for them? The Aunt has already said that some of the monies donated to the fund will be used for "legal costs". What does that mean?

The parents obviously had to have representation when they appeared in court to give statements.

I find the whole thing deeply disturbing. No one even knows what happened to the child. If it wasn't for the parents' social status, people would be asking whether she was even in the apartment in the first place.

If it turns out that she simply got out of the room and wondered off and the parents are prosectuted for wilful neglect, can they use these donated funds to pay for their legal defence?

I thought the legal advice was for experts in Portugese law or something? They said they were utilising experts in PR, international law etc.

3andnomore, read posts properly before piling in with criticism please. You will see if you read mine that I very clearly said I did not choose MW holidays because I did not like the idea of leaving my children and I opted for self catering.

However I also said that as it is the norm on a very expensive boliday it is harsh to criticise the parents when pretty much every other family would have been doing the same thing. How you have interpreted that as me saying if you pay a lot of money then it is okay to leave your children is just beyond me.

That might be what they said, but these lawyers were definitely flown in the day before they gave their statements in court.

The Portugese aren't allowed to release the evidence that she was taken from the aparetment, hence it seems unfair imo to assume that we know otherwise based on a lack on information.

One piece of evidence I have seen reported on is the fact that her toy cat she was deeply attached to was left behind, something a small child on the wander wuld be unlikely to do.

I think it will take a court case before we find out what the evidence is, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.

Xenia

I should clearly have copied out the whole article (it was too long) but it is on the AlphaMummy website.

What the professor was trying to demonstrate is where the boundaries are - so when she writes acceptable - she means within the boundaries of the law. This only becomes evident if you read the whole article. So when she says unacceptable, she means outside the law.

For what it is worth, I think she is right when she says that what the McCanns did was outside the law. She is a noted expert in the field.

But I disagree with her conclusion that it is okay to leave them with the door locked - toddlers who are mobile can get into all sorts of trouble although the risks (from the main road and the swimming pool etc) might be smaller.

If I were giving evidence within a system so deeply different to the one in place in my own country, I would appreciate the presence of legal specialists. One false move / piece of unintentionally relaesed info and they could accidentally cause any potential case to collapse.

Even things like the reward / stetements have to be carefully checked over.

We're told she was attached to the toy cat by people who want - perhaps need - us to believe she was abducted.

bobbysmum I disagree with your post concerning the parents status.....it is self evident that Madeleine's whereabouts is unknown and the context you have put it in is not very nice

Of course you'd want a lawyer - no argument there.

But who is paying for their lawyer?

You seem to have access to all the available evidence bobbysmum, perhaps you could enlighten us then what is actually known? Seeing as clearly the evidence being kept secret by the police actually shows she wanders off.

NONE of us can possibly know because of the secrecy. We can probably assume the police in Portugal have full awareness of the direction the evidence points in. other than that none of us can know, and it seems really, really unfair to be questioning the whole investigation on the balance of- well, what exactly?

Taht you haven't seen the evidence.

Ah- abck to the secrecy then.

or do you work for Interpol and have access to a file?

Erm, she and he are both well paid professionals

Who is to assume THEY can't be paying for the lawyers?

Or their family?

Xenia

Sorry one thing I should have said (tyoing in a hurry - things going on everywhere) is that you are right when you say that the professor was taking a series of hypothetical examples and carefully avoided naming the McCanns, But the example I cut and pasted was clearly drawn from the McCanns scenario.

PCE - And who is to assume they are?

I'm not sure why it is any of our business or in any way helpful to know who is paying their legal bills tbh.

if some are paid by this Madeleine fund then giving is totally optional and charity law examines how funds like this are utilised- they can't be spent on things not coverde in the operational statemnet created when founded. This is monitoreed e]xtremely closely by Cahrity Commission- last charity but one I worked for (a huge one you will have heard of) almost got closed down because a volunteer advertised a coffee morning without a charity number on it, and because a raffle ticket was printed wrongly by a former employee.

And if the fund isn't the case in point then I really can't see its any of their business.