Maybe they can afford a babysitter...

[d000hg]

So if you were denied access to your kids you would not dress up?

Certainly not as a way to convince people they were wrong about me not being sane.

[ZARDOZ]

You are probably more likely to have your child harmed by a babysitter than be a victim of a home invasion and abduction. Statistically speaking of course.

Anyways, they have in the past used libel money to fund their own investigators, if anything good has come of this it is that Portugal got so much of a hammering into their laissez faire attitude to child abuse from the ongoing spotlight the McCann's have brought that there have undoubtedly been less victims.

Firstly as you imply it was unlikely to be a stranger abduction. How you get to child abuse though I'm not so sure. Medicating small children and leaving them alone perhaps could be described as abuse?

[minestrone]

Firstly as you imply it was unlikely to be a stranger abduction. How you get to child abuse though I'm not so sure. Medicating small children and leaving them alone perhaps could be described as abuse?

I'm sorry, have you quoted the right post?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Maybe they should spend the money they got on an advertising campaign reminding parents not to leave their children unattended?

The key here is avoidable risk. What they did was avoidable. Any sensible parent would never have done what they did. I wonder if DodgyAgent would still do what the McCann's did?

As for bringing up the subject again its like Jimmy Savile. It should not be allowed to happen again.

I don't know how it is now - different I would imagine. But back in the 80s at least it was VERY common place - if not typical - in places like Butlins to leave your youngest kids in their cot at night, with the baby listening service, while you go out to watch the cabaret or whatever.

The reality is that 999,999 times out of 1 million everything would be just fine. It was acceptable, now it's not. I struggle to blame the McCanns. Now we've learned a lesson.

[TheFaQQer]

So if you were denied access to your kids you would not dress up? IMO you are a very poor parent.

I was arrested trying to see my kids. And from no access I went to 4 days a week custody.

Oddly most of the access success stories come from those at the end of their tether who threaten to go(or go) over the mark. Very sad state of affairs.

A parent that chooses to put themselves in prison doesn't rate that highly as a parent in my book.

A parent that thinks that men in tights is the answer to the problem of access to children doesn't rate highly as sensible to me.

Ideally both parents would act in the best interests of the kids. I saw a daily mail story(yes I know I should avoid it!) today about some TV presenter who does not pay for his kids. I was shocked and disgusted - what a moron.

I agree. Anyone who shirks their responsibilities as a parent - whether that's those that deliberately don't pay, or hide their money off-shore, or pretend that they only earn a tiny amount each year because they derive their income from hidden trusts - or doesn't act in the best interest of the child are pretty low.

Those that seek to use the misery of a missing child to show that they are wonderful parents, however, are lower in my book.

[unixman]

The key here is avoidable risk. What they did was avoidable. Any sensible parent would never have done what they did.

Putting your child in a car is an entirely avoidable risk, and a thousand times more dangerous than the McCann scenario. People take these risks all the time.

[SueEllen]

I don't know how it is now - different I would imagine. But back in the 80s at least it was VERY common place - if not typical - in places like Butlins to leave your youngest kids in their cot at night, with the baby listening service, while you go out to watch the cabaret or whatever.

The reality is that 999,999 times out of 1 million everything would be just fine. It was acceptable, now it's not. I struggle to blame the McCanns. Now we've learned a lesson.

The reason they left their kids alone is because others were doing it.

[BrilloPad]

Certainly not as a way to convince people they were wrong about me not being sane.

Men are damned whatever they do. In general, the less sane courses of action lead to better results of child access. But you need massive nerves.

I don't know how it is now - different I would imagine. But back in the 80s at least it was VERY common place - if not typical - in places like Butlins to leave your youngest kids in their cot at night, with the baby listening service, while you go out to watch the cabaret or whatever.

The reality is that 999,999 times out of 1 million everything would be just fine. It was acceptable, now it's not. I struggle to blame the McCanns. Now we've learned a lesson.

There are differences between then and now. Then if a child was seen struggling with an adult another adult would intervene. These days people mind their own business. Several reasons for this. Back then child abuse was acceptable - if not admitted publicly.

Putting your child in a car is an entirely avoidable risk, and a thousand times more dangerous than the McCann scenario. People take these risks all the time.

Rubbish! People need cars. They have busy lives. I live without a car - but its not for most.

[BrilloPad]

A parent that chooses to put themselves in prison doesn't rate that highly as a parent in my book.

A parent that thinks that men in tights is the answer to the problem of access to children doesn't rate highly as sensible to me.


I agree. Anyone who shirks their responsibilities as a parent - whether that's those that deliberately don't pay, or hide their money off-shore, or pretend that they only earn a tiny amount each year because they derive their income from hidden trusts - or doesn't act in the best interest of the child are pretty low.

Those that seek to use the misery of a missing child to show that they are wonderful parents, however, are lower in my book.

I don't use the "misery of a missing child" to "show I am a wonderful parent". I use it as a warning to others. The McCann's actions need to be seen as socially unacceptable.

They only reason you make your comments about child access is you have not been there. It is my opinion that "The interests of the children shall be paramount". Those are the opening words of the children act 1989. Shame that the courts have interpreted that the interests of the mother to be equal to that of the child. That might be generally true - but it is certainly not always.

In my opinion, a parent who would not put themselves in prison for their children is a poor parent. Actually that's a bit strong. Whenever I did my f4j stuff I was always bricking myself. But I am pleased I did what I did - it worked out well for my children.

[d000hg]

Men are damned whatever they do. In general, the less sane courses of action lead to better results of child access. But you need massive nerves.

In that case kidnapping them and running away would be the best option.