Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Madeleine Beth McCann went missing from PDL in Portugal on the 3rd May 2007, there are so many unanswered questions, please discuss

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby bugalugs1970 » Thu May 29, 2008 11:59 pm

veritas wrote:
bugalugs1970 wrote:just run out of baccy......do you think it would be ok if i left my 5 year old up in bed asleep alone and nip to the local petrol station....i can do it in about 5 minutes???????



Not a problem.

Apparently half an hour is the going rate for responsible parenting (legally speaking).

Just ensure you leave the front door wide open (in case of fire) make sure your child doesn't say anything (in passing) before you leave - plenty of time to get some baccy AND stop off for a pint!



but the cats might get out........better take me credit cards just in case someone gets in...... :lol:
I'm on the payroll........WHAT...you didn't know!!!!!!
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Savekids/
http://www.truthformadeleine.com
User avatar
bugalugs1970
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 2270
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:24 pm
Location: Squirrel stalking in Breacon Beacons

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby newperson » Fri May 30, 2008 12:02 am

veritas wrote:
bugalugs1970 wrote:just run out of baccy......do you think it would be ok if i left my 5 year old up in bed asleep alone and nip to the local petrol station....i can do it in about 5 minutes???????



Not a problem.

Apparently half an hour is the going rate for responsible parenting (legally speaking).

Just ensure you leave the front door wide open (in case of fire) make sure your child doesn't say anything (in passing) before you leave - plenty of time to get some baccy AND stop off for a pint!


lol
sad but true
If you can't be a good example - then you will just have to be a horrible warning
User avatar
newperson
Mafia Boss
 
Posts: 3375
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:47 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby Leo » Fri May 30, 2008 12:03 am

Poor Madeleine, Sean and Amelie - well, legally speaking, children, we think you three will be just fine on your own in the dark in an unlocked apartment backing onto a public car park. Well responsible, us.
Leo
New In Town
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:31 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby jooles » Fri May 30, 2008 12:04 am

this is why cm harped on about the listening service not being available yet the mccanns knew this, its not available because it wasnt considered safe due to many apts being outside the complex, i wish reporters would remember this
jooles
New In Town
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby beachy » Fri May 30, 2008 12:20 am

Tigger wrote:
'If there is any suggestion of neglect charges being considered that will be vigorously denied because the legal advice that Kate and Gerry have received both in Portugal and Britain is that legally speaking everything they were doing that week was well within the bounds of responsible parenting.'


So both their British and Portuguese lawyers have told them that leaving a three-year-old and two two-year-olds alone at night in an unlocked apartment that opened onto a public car park was "within the bounds of responsible parenting," eh?

Fine. Tell it to a Portuguese court and see how far you get.
beachy
Hardened Criminal
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby Thorn » Fri May 30, 2008 12:35 am

The McCanns, both doctors from Rothley, Leicestershire, have strongly denied negligence saying they were having dinner just 50 yards from where their daughter was taken.


Back to 50 yards. The propagandists writing this stuff still seem unaware that the actual distance is irrelevant so spinning it is a waste of effort.

What is important is not the distance but the time required to move from point A to point B, ie from the Tapas bar inside the walled complex to the apt in the street outside.

In my opinion, even if they had had a baby monitor installed in the apt it would still have taken them too long to realise, react and move from point A to point B in order to render timely assistance in the event of accident or fire.
Thorn
New In Town
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:49 am

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby OurLadyofFatima » Fri May 30, 2008 12:35 am

Yep, this is why I tend towards preplanning. Spinning a little fatal accident would be child' play for these ones. Why did little baby Maddy have to disappear completely? Why? Where was she taken to?
OurLadyofFatima
First Time Offender
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:15 am

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby Tigger » Fri May 30, 2008 12:38 am

beachy wrote:
Tigger wrote:
'If there is any suggestion of neglect charges being considered that will be vigorously denied because the legal advice that Kate and Gerry have received both in Portugal and Britain is that legally speaking everything they were doing that week was well within the bounds of responsible parenting.'


So both their British and Portuguese lawyers have told them that leaving a three-year-old and two two-year-olds alone at night in an unlocked apartment that opened onto a public car park was "within the bounds of responsible parenting," eh?

Fine. Tell it to a Portuguese court and see how far you get.


Duh beachy :wink: you forgot something..................So both their British and Portuguese lawyers have told them that leaving a three-year-old and two two-year-olds alone ON CONSECUTIVE nights an unlocked apartment that opened onto a public car park was "within the bounds of responsible parenting," :wink: :D
Without prejudice. All posts are opinion based unless backed by a link or quote.


When everything depends on just one tiny lie, we forget that in order to correct one lie, seven others have to be told.
- Shevat Yehudah
Tigger
Local Lag
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:48 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby gotcha » Fri May 30, 2008 12:39 am

Tigger wrote:SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM FOR THE PHRASE OF THE DECADE! :evil: :shock: :shock:
Mods if this is duplicate, please delete. Thanks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... eared.html


McCanns face child neglect charges for leaving Madeleine alone on night she disappeared
By Vanessa Allen

Last updated at 11:07 PM on 29th May 2008


Kate McCann: Denies the claims

Comments (0) Add to My Stories

Kate and Gerry McCann could still face charges of neglecting their daughter Madeleine, official documents reveal.


The first published court ruling on the 13-month investigation shows Portuguese police have not ruled out neglect, abduction, or that Madeleine was killed and her body hidden.


Mr and Mrs McCann, both 40, strenuously deny any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.


They have also rejected claims that they neglected their three children by leaving them in their holiday apartment while they went out for dinner with friends.


The documents show the police inquiry still covers homicide, abandonment, concealment of a corpse and abduction.


The charge of abandonment carries a maximum ten-year jail sentence in Portugal, but only if prosecutors can prove the McCanns intended to neglect Madeleine.


The couple have repeatedly insisted they believed Madeleine, then three, and their two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie were safe in the apartment in Praia da Luz. They were eating only 50 yards away, which enabled them to check on the children regularly.


Details of the continuing investigation were revealed in court documents released by the Supreme Court of Justice in the city of Evora.


Public prosecutor Jose Magalhaes e Meneses had applied to the court for permission to seize the mobile phone records of the McCanns and their friends, the so-called Tapas Seven.


Investigators are interested in 18 text messages allegedly sent from an unidentified number to Mr McCann between May 2 and 4 last year. Madeleine vanished on May 3. Police also wanted details of calls made between April 28, when the group arrived in Portugal, and September 9, when the McCanns left the country to return to their home in Rothley, Leicestershire.


But the request was refused by the Supreme Court, which published its ruling. Such publication is unusual in Portugal, where police investigations are covered by strict judicial secrecy laws.


Explaining the decision, Judge Fernando Ribeiro Cardoso said: 'The details of the content of the messages can only be subjected to interception in real time, with due judicial authorisation.'


The McCann's spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said they were pleased the documents showed police had not abandoned the theory that Madeleine was abducted.


He added: 'If there is any suggestion of neglect charges being considered that will be vigorously denied because the legal advice that Kate and Gerry have received, both in Portugal and Britain, is that everything they did that week was well within the bounds of reasonable parenting.'


Mr Mitchell said Mr McCann had no knowledge of the texts allegedly sent to his phone on May 3 and 4.


He said he only received a few calls to his mobile in the six days before Madeleine's disappearance.



Missing: Madeleine McCann

The charge carries a maximum 10-year jail sentence.

The McCanns, both doctors from Rothley, Leicestershire, have strongly denied negligence saying they were having dinner just 50 yards from where their daughter was taken.

Details of the investigation were yesterday revealed in a court judgement, explaining why Portuguese prosecutor Magalhaes e Meneses was refused access to the content of 10 mobile phones - believed to belong to Kate and Gerry and their seven friends.

Investigators were particularly interested in 18 text messages allegedly sent from an unidentified mobile number to Mr McCann between May 2 and 4 last year.

Mr Meneses also asked for a full list of all the calls made between members of the McCanns' holidaying group from when they arrived in Portugal on April 28 and when the McCann's left on September 9.

Judge Fernando Ribeiro Cardoso refused the request for the calls and texts, and in his written judgement revealed the directions of the continuing investigation.

He wrote: 'In the case files pending in the Public Prosecution Services... they are investigating the disappearance of M.M. and the eventual carrying out of the crimes of abduction, homicide, exposure or abandonment of a child and concealment of a corpse.'


Anguish: Gerry and Kate McCann are being investigated for allegedly neglecting Madeleine

The youngster disappeared from the couple's holiday apartment in Praia de Luz on May 3 last year while they dined with friends a short distance away.

Members of their group would return to the apartment at regular intervals to check on Madeleine and her twin siblings.

The youngster's fifth birthday was on May 12.

Clarence Mitchell, the couple's spokesman, said Kate and Gerry vigorously deny neglecting Madeleine and welcome the news that abduction is a line of inquiry.

He said: 'This court document outlines the areas of the investigation and in no way suggests Kate and Gerry will be facing any such charges.

'Equally we have heard nothing officially to suggest any such area of investigation is being considered.


The view from the tapas bar to the McCann's apartment in the bottom left of the picture

'However we do note that abduction is apparently one of the parameters and we welcome that because that is what Kate and Gerry and their friends have said and that is what happened.

'If there is any suggestion of neglect charges being considered that will be vigorously denied because the legal advice that Kate and Gerry have received both in Portugal and Britain is that legally speaking everything they were doing that week was well within the bounds of responsible parenting.'
Then tht is why some of our young ppl are thugs, if the legal profession thinks they acted with the bounds of good parenting then all hope is lost
gotcha
New In Town
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:06 am

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby scotch » Fri May 30, 2008 12:45 am

It is beyond belief that anyone could pretend that leaving three children under the age of 4 alone in an apartment is responsible parenting, no matter how often the checked, 15 mins, half an hour. . .

it makes my blood boil, it's sick that the lovely couple are going to maintain that what they did was within the bounds of responible parenting. . .SICK
scotch
You're Nicked
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 11:32 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby bootie2 » Fri May 30, 2008 1:11 am

On the evening of the 3rd, it's a certainty that the McCanns did check on a regular basis. But then again, that night was being orchestrated by them, so wonder how often they checked on the night of the 2nd!!
bootie2
Suspect
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:01 am

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby Ticket » Fri May 30, 2008 1:16 am

redsquare wrote:Yes, they will argue that they were simply performing the Mark Warner baby-listening service for themselves. If that was against the law, then Mark Warner have been offering an illegal service in all their resorts, up to the time they withdrew it.

They will argue that even if the MW baby-listening service HAD been available in PDL it would still not have stopped an abductor striking between rounds/checks.

Of course, a baby-listening service provided in a self-contained resort complex is a different animal to a baby-listening service in a spread out resort like PDL, where apartments are outside the actual complex grounds.

The big question is: Have the PJ got enough solid evidence to prove they either didn't check at all or not as often as they have claimed?

Have they got CCTV evidence?


I may be talking out of the wrong orifice here, but I'm pretty sure that Mark Warners don't offer a baby listening service in their Portugal resorts because it is AGAINST THE LAW to leave small children unattended in Portugal. That'll be illegal then Clarence.
User avatar
Ticket
You're Nicked
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:13 am

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby beggars'belief » Fri May 30, 2008 1:22 am

As to negligence, in UK law, their status as Doctors (yes, they BOTH were. BOTH, FFS) would obviously raise the bar as to where to set the reasonable expectation as to their personal 'goal' re Duty of Care (if, unto others) in the tort of negligence. This was, however, only concerning their own children, not 'others'. So, should that reduce the relevant level of expectation? You be the judge. I think not.

But that's UK Law.

----
This concerns Portuguese Law:

As far as I understand, theirs is a more pro-active formulation of the relevant duty. Good stuff.

Brings 'intent' into the reckoning. Fine. Quite right.

But, there's a difference between actions (i.e. doings) and omissions (i.e. to failings to have done what one otherwise may have done.) As far as I understand their own (or some undenied 'friend' of theirs) admissions to be, they failed to guard against circumstances that they, themselves, have brought forwards as 'plausible' suspicious observations (in their own eyes, or those of friends - undenied).

They're canny beggars.

You've got to give them that, at least.

But it wont wash.

IMO
"These people only do good ... and this is how the world repays them" MrGerry's Mum, TV news 4-5-07
beggars'belief
You're Nicked
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:19 am
Location: by the sceptic tank

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby Weary » Fri May 30, 2008 2:16 am

Oh, let's face it, Clarence will say absolutely anything in defense of these parents, whether or not it's true. He's suggested that the T9 are all being represented by the same attorneys, he's stated that the T9 are in complete agreement about what happened that night, he said that the McCanns don't see the point in the reconstruction and hadn't decided whether to return, he said that none of the friends were willing to return, he's said all sorts of stuff when he felt it would boost the McCanns' image and he was safe from being contradicted. They're not being represented the same lawyers, lawyers who are filling Clarence and the McCanns in on what the T7 think. But no lawyer filled him in on the fact that three of the T7 were willing to return to Portugal because the Paynes aren't using the McCanns' lawyer; and the McCanns may not see the point of a reconstruction but eventually Clarence had to say that if they were asked to go they would have to return. He's just lying, again and again--you can't take a single word the man says as factual. He says they've been told it's responsible parenting. Idiotic journalists who also rationalize abandoning their chldren have agreed, but I don't remember hearing from a family law expert or a child care expert saying that leaving small children unguarded is responsible. Who are these experts whom Clarence is referring to? What are their names, and what did they actually say, word for word?

Even if Madeleine was simply abducted, and that was the limit of their guilt, "responsible parenting" in the McCann's sense is a contradiction in terms, because responsible parents don't leave their tiny children out of sight and hearing where it is very easy for someone to steal them--and the fact that the children were out of sight and hearing and very easy to steal is evident because one of them got stolen easily! If she's gone, the doors were unlocked, the parents couldn't see her get taken and couldn't hear her get taken, it would appear that they haven't been responsible in providing protection and care! Sure, they could have been even less responsible--they could have knocked her out, trussed her up, put her in a chair by the side of the road, and left a note that said "STEAL ME" taped to her, but what they did instead worked just fine to prove they're irresponsible and that they neglected her. I
Weary
You're Nicked
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:34 pm

Re: Legally McCanns WERE responsible parents! update MAIL.

Postby TimH » Fri May 30, 2008 2:47 am

I'm with beachy...tell it to the judge, Clarrie. The Court of Public Opinion has ruled against you.
TimH
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:52 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Justice for Madeleine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests