Right or Wrong?

[TinTin]

It's clear neglect

They should count themselves lucky to still have the 2 twins (they could have lost all 3 of them).
I clearly remember the case of the mum from a council estate who was hounded by the Sun - same newspaper that has taken the Madeleine mantra at heart - her fault being that:
She took her 11-year-old son to the airport only to find out that his passport had expired (happens to the best and worst of people). Not wanting to miss her holiday (one of a few times that she had gone abroad) - maybe she was depressed or wahatever - gave the boy money for a taxi and food for a week, he went home, called his uncle/aunt who were obviously nearby and was happily watching TV during his half-term until some other mum from the estate grassed her to the Sun (to get money for fags or her dose). Was that neglect? Were they extenuating circumstances?
If I were a judge, I would be a lot harsher on anyone with a decent education that came in front of me. At least they can clearly tell what's right and what's wrong. Or can you, Mr McCann?

[DodgyAgent]

"where you draw the line"

at the front door. Yes it is ok to leave them asleep upstairs, but it is not ok to leave the house with them asleep upstairs and go off for a meal. The simple fact remains that they did put their kids in danger by leaving them. Had they not left them they would not have had one taken. Maybe I'm just overprotective of my family, but I would never dream of going out and leaving my kids alone when they were that young.

"I have been to club Mark warners and have always left my children in the rooms"

How old were your kids? Wasn't Madeleine the eldest of the 3.

"No because driving a car when pissed is a danger to others and not just their children"

OK driving a car in a big empty field except for one big hard tree. I was trying to see if putting the parent in another situation where their kids were in danger would have the same outcome.

So why is it OK to leave kids unsupervised in their own homes. If a child was kidnapped whilst under the supervision of say a babysitter, would that make it alright then?

At what point does one allow children to walk to school on their own. A twelve year old gets hit and killed by a car on the first day they walk to school will the puritans come out and tut tut about the child being too young?

I am not sure you and others fair or right even to apply your own rules, because quite often "own rules" are not applied objectively anyway, they are applied for example by people that are envious of people for example being able to afford a Mark warner holiday, or people who are envious that others are not as obsessed with their children as they are. Downright feckless irresponsibility of leaving young kids at home for two weeks is clearly (in my view) over the line. Quite whether the Mccanns overstepped the line is not in my view as clear cut as it may seem.

[BoredBloke]

There are degrees of risk. Leaving your kids with a babysitter is more of a risk than looking after them yourself. Leaving your very very young kids alone in an unlocked apartment while you head on out for a nice meal is a bigger risk still. Everybody has different feelings about the amount of risk they are prepared to take with their kids. Obviously this lot were happy to take more risks with their kids than I would. Unfortunlately for them and their kid they paid a hefty price. I bet they don't take the same risks in the future. As far as the law is concerned, if it is deemed that that risk they took put their child in danger then they should get the penalty due to them. The fact that their child was abducted while they were not there shows that they put thier child in danger. Had they been there, then they would still have 3 kids and not two.

[The Lone Gunman]

TonyE: If they had used the hotels baby listening service would that have been OK?

I only ask because from what I have read they were putting in a better service themselves.

I have said before and still believe that they assesed the situation and felt it was safe to do what they did. They were wrong but they made that judgement.
Just the same as other parents do every day.

The thing is, none of us should have to decide whether it is safe to leave our kids on their own for fear of being abducted or worse.

As Dodgy says, this is a line drawing situation. How far is too far and what do you base that decision on?

[smee.again]

[QUOTE=BA to the Stars]Mr McCann said: "We have been advised that, legally, our behaviour was well within the bounds of responsible parenting, QUOTE]



Legally perhaps but morally they were so outside the boundaries of responsible parenting. IMHO.

[BoredBloke]

The simple test should be around if their actions proved to be a danger to their kids. As I said, everybody has a different view of risk and how much of it they are prepared to take. I would not leave kids this young alone in an unlocked apartment while I went out for a meal. For me that risk is too great. As I said before, I may be overprotective, but then I also have not had one of my kids abducted have I. Their actions were a danger to one of their kids because in all probability one of their kids is now dead. How much more of a danger is there?

[WotNxt]

The simple test should be around if their actions proved to be a danger to their kids. As I said, everybody has a different view of risk and how much of it they are prepared to take. I would not leave kids this young alone in an unlocked apartment while I went out for a meal. For me that risk is too great. As I said before, I may be overprotective, but then I also have not had one of my kids abducted have I. Their actions were a danger to one of their kids because in all probability one of their kids is now dead. How much more of a danger is there?

Please look at this link and think about the accuracy and relevance of your comments: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6644615.stm

An informed opinion will be better than an uninformed one - whether you change your mind or not.

[richard-af]

I think that if their daughter had been found early on, safe & well, there'd have been a call to prosecute the parents, as a warning to others.

But, sadly, that isn't now very likely, and so it seems (from the media) that society has (rightly, in my opinion) decided that they've suffered more than enough. And, let's not forget, they do have other kids. Mum & Dad in nick won't help them, will it? The whole thing is just horrible - and they have to live with the decision they made that night forever.

[WotNxt]

I think that if their daughter had been found early on, safe & well, there'd have been a call to prosecute the parents, as a warning to others.

But, sadly, that isn't now very likely, and so it seems (from the media) that society has (rightly, in my opinion) decided that they've suffered more than enough. And, let's not forget, they do have other kids. Mum & Dad in nick won't help them, will it? The whole thing is just horrible - and they have to live with the decision they made that night forever.

From what I have read the apartment was locked, the kids were settled, the parents were nearby (possibly with line of sight - not sure) and were checking on them every half an hour. I don't think there are ANY grounds for prosecution based on those facts alone. I can see why an investigation may be necessary to check the reality rather than simply what the newspapers have reported.

However, it makes me sick to think of all the whinging, snapping, snarling, self-righteous parents who think that they have never done anything remotely to put their kids in this sort of danger.

Send your kids to school and they are in danger, to Cubs/Brownies etc, to get an icecream from the van parked RIGHT OUTSIDE your house. Leave them with other members of your family and, statistically, they are probably in the greatest danger of all - apart from the higher statistical probability that they will be harmed by YOU, their own parents.

The McCanns did a risk assessment of the situation, as do all parents faced with such a decision. My belief is that they got the balance right and they could not have reasonably foreseen the abduction would be likely to occur or succeed. It is a tragedy for them but I don't believe they did anything wrong at the time.

[BoredBloke]

"
Please look at this link and think about the accuracy and relevance of your comments: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6644615.stm"

OK looked at it. So if they had been with their kids, would their daughter have been taken. NO. They went out and left their kids. That action was what put their daughter in danger. There are no two ways about it. If they stayed with their kids then they would still have 3. They have to take some responsibility for their actions.

Had it been their car, left unlocked on a street which got nicked, whose fault would that have been? Yes the theif was responsible for nicking it, but their action made it a sh1t load easier to do.