Re: Gerald McCann: CATS system - registration number 19309

by kaz 26.11.16 18:13

Must admit that after the football abuse revelations I experienced an Epiphany of sorts. It has always puzzled me that so many of these ‘celebs’ earning ridiculous remuneration from licence payers’ money such as Jonathan Ross ( OBE no less ) Esther Rantzen ( DBE ), Saville ( OBE KCSG ) just some examples who are/ were singularly lacking in talent but somehow managed to scrape their way to the upper echelons of the big money earners. Now I’m not saying that any of these have been subjected to a metaphorical ‘casting couch’ , maybe it’s sheer talent that propelled them to the top , who am I to judge? I’m just a member of the paying public and no doubt far too thick to spot real talent. Our money seems to go where those in charge want it to and in turn these receivers of largesse go on to become leading figures in such institutions as charities etc. Is real talent in sport, theatre, politics ………………in fact any influential field ……………being sidelined for those who ‘will.’ Is this why so many of our prominent shakers and movers are downright degenerates?

by sammyc 27.11.16 19:40

MrsC wrote:
MrsC wrote:
sammyc wrote:
tnb wrote:I'm certainly not a supporter of Celtic football club and have never heard of G McCann being a club doctor (perhaps I'm wrong) however I do feel this is the wrong place to stir up West of Scotland religious indifferences.
I don't think MrsC is trying to stir up West of Scotland religious indifferences. I'm pretty sure Gerry McCann had links with Celtic. This thread is Gerry's CATS File. Perhaps MrsC is throwing it out there for debate with regards to the sexual abuse to children at Football Clubs. I haven't got an empty CATS File in my name so why has he? Just wondering. Apologies to MrsC if I have misinterpreted the post.

Spot on! : )

I meant to say that you were spot on with your post, not that you were spot on with misinterpreting it. x

No worries MrsC I knew what you meant empathy

by Trevorjjj 11.07.17 11:29

Dr Gerald McCann did however make the claim that a senior social worker had advised him that their child care arrangements in Praia da Luz were 'well within the bounds of responsible child care'.

Well THAT is pure equine solid waste, in no way would Joe or Jane ordinary be protected under the conditions the McCann children were left.

3 x under 4's, left unattended, doors unlocked, no audio or visual monitoring, highly dubious monitoring claims given neighbours account of a child crying for extended periods om a previous night.

Not only could intruders get IN, but the children may have been able to get OUT - that depends on the latching mechanism of the doors and windows.

by Guest 11.07.17 12:40

Trevorjjj wrote:Dr Gerald McCann did however make the claim that a senior social worker had advised him that their child care arrangements in Praia da Luz were 'well within the bounds of responsible child care'.

Gerry McCann talks to CNN..

“We have been assured by the authorities that what we did fell well within the boundaries of good parenting. We have been advised our behaviour was legally well within the bounds of responsible parenting and have been assured no action will be taken. We were essentially performing our own baby-listening service. What Kate and I did was at worst naïve”.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

One of the offers of help we’d received came from a paralegal based in Leicester, via a colleague of Gerry’s. He worked for a firm specializing in family law, the International Family Law Group (IFLG). It was difficult to know what this company could do but we decided it would be worth meeting them to discuss the possibilities. So on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal. We’d warned them to keep their arrival at our apartment low-key,so as not to attract any unwanted attention from the media lying in wait outside. In they came, dressed in bow ties and braces – the barrister was even wearing a panama hat. I heaved a sigh. They might as well have had great big arrows pointing at their heads reading ‘lawyer’. Not to worry: it was their presence and input that were important.

As well as this initial meeting we had two further sessions with the lawyers over the course of that weekend to explore how they might be able to assist us. There had already been some speculation in the press, based on those erroneous reports that when Madeleine was taken we were dining ‘hundreds of metres away’, that we could face prosecution for negligence.

After examining the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to apartment 5A, the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the bounds of reasonable parenting’. This had hardly been our biggest concern, but it was reassuring to hear, all the same. The lawyers then talked to us about applying for an order to make Madeleine a ward of court.
..........

Ward of Court is another story and this isn't the right place for any of this.

ontopic

please.

by Trevorjjj 11.07.17 14:08

Verdi wrote:
Trevorjjj wrote:Dr Gerald McCann did however make the claim that a senior social worker had advised him that their child care arrangements in Praia da Luz were 'well within the bounds of responsible child care'.
Gerry McCann talks to CNN..

“We have been assured by the authorities that what we did fell well within the boundaries of good parenting. We have been advised our behaviour was legally well within the bounds of responsible parenting and have been assured no action will be taken. We were essentially performing our own baby-listening service. What Kate and I did was at worst naïve”.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

One of the offers of help we’d received came from a paralegal based in Leicester, via a colleague of Gerry’s. He worked for a firm specializing in family law, the International Family Law Group (IFLG). It was difficult to know what this company could do but we decided it would be worth meeting them to discuss the possibilities. So on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal. We’d warned them to keep their arrival at our apartment low-key,so as not to attract any unwanted attention from the media lying in wait outside. In they came, dressed in bow ties and braces – the barrister was even wearing a panama hat. I heaved a sigh. They might as well have had great big arrows pointing at their heads reading ‘lawyer’. Not to worry: it was their presence and input that were important.

As well as this initial meeting we had two further sessions with the lawyers over the course of that weekend to explore how they might be able to assist us. There had already been some speculation in the press, based on those erroneous reports that when Madeleine was taken we were dining ‘hundreds of metres away’, that we could face prosecution for negligence.

After examining the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to apartment 5A, the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the bounds of reasonable parenting’. This had hardly been our biggest concern, but it was reassuring to hear, all the same. The lawyers then talked to us about applying for an order to make Madeleine a ward of court.
..........

Ward of Court is another story and this isn't the right place for any of this.

:ontopic:please.

Lawyers, basically telling them 'It's okay, we can get you off!'

The claim by McCann that they were behaving as responsible parents still retains a smell usually found around stables, in quantities we refer to as a 'pile'.

by Trevorjjj 11.07.17 14:10

Ward of Court is another story and this isn't the right place for any of this.

ontopic

please.

What???

by **sharonl** 11.07.17 19:49

Trevorjjj wrote:Ward of Court is another story and this isn't the right place for any of this.

please.

What???

The Ward of Court threads are here, you can discuss this matter on one of these threads
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Staying on topic is necessary to ensure that threads are not derailed.

by Trevorjjj 11.07.17 20:33

sharonl wrote:
Trevorjjj wrote:Ward of Court is another story and this isn't the right place for any of this.

please.

What???

The Ward of Court threads are here, you can discuss this matter on one of these threads
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Staying on topic is necessary to ensure that threads are not derailed.

I don't want to discuss wards of court, nor have I - hence my confusion at your comments.

by **sharonl** 11.07.17 22:52

Trevorjjj wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Trevorjjj wrote:Ward of Court is another story and this isn't the right place for any of this.

please.

What???

The Ward of Court threads are here, you can discuss this matter on one of these threads
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Staying on topic is necessary to ensure that threads are not derailed.

I don't want to discuss wards of court, nor have I - hence my confusion at your comments.

OK, point taken - lets get back to discussion on the CATS entry

by Trevorjjj 12.07.17 9:59

sharonl wrote:
Trevorjjj wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Trevorjjj wrote:Ward of Court is another story and this isn't the right place for any of this.

please.

What???

The Ward of Court threads are here, you can discuss this matter on one of these threads
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Staying on topic is necessary to ensure that threads are not derailed.

I don't want to discuss wards of court, nor have I - hence my confusion at your comments.

OK, point taken - lets get back to discussion on the CATS entry

Indeed, I'd like to caution that people should make themselves aware of the full range of subjects the CATS system covers. Even if 'someone' has/had a CATS file reference, the nature of the 'red flag' cannot be known, and it certainly doesn't follow that it is a child-abuse flag. Domestic abuse is included, but where the family has children, that is potentially abuse of the child too.

Sex-abuse, and child sex-abuse are the extreme end of the scale, and while police may wisely START there, WE should not, the damage is exponentially increased.

by Liz Eagles 12.07.17 10:47

Trevorjjj wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Trevorjjj wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Trevorjjj wrote:Ward of Court is another story and this isn't the right place for any of this.

please.

What???

The Ward of Court threads are here, you can discuss this matter on one of these threads
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Staying on topic is necessary to ensure that threads are not derailed.

I don't want to discuss wards of court, nor have I - hence my confusion at your comments.

OK, point taken - lets get back to discussion on the CATS entry

Indeed, I'd like to caution that people should make themselves aware of the full range of subjects the CATS system covers. Even if 'someone' has/had a CATS file reference, the nature of the 'red flag' cannot be known, and it certainly doesn't follow that it is a child-abuse flag. Domestic abuse is included, but where the family has children, that is potentially abuse of the child too.

Sex-abuse, and child sex-abuse are the extreme end of the scale, and while police may wisely START there, WE should not, the damage is exponentially increased.

I have an unexpected free day from my break and I've been catching up this morning and reading your posts.

I'm interested in your last sentence and for obvious reasons I'd like you to explain any professional knowledge/expertise you have that explains a CATS file to make such assumptions that police may wisely start there. I don't know if you've seen the child abuse scandals in UK and I'm asking you if you can truly give authoritative evidence that CATS files are opened as a regular thing or are you just happy to baffle with bullshit?

by Trevorjjj 12.07.17 12:54

aquila wrote:
Trevorjjj wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Trevorjjj wrote:
sharonl wrote:

The Ward of Court threads are here, you can discuss this matter on one of these threads
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Staying on topic is necessary to ensure that threads are not derailed.

I don't want to discuss wards of court, nor have I - hence my confusion at your comments.

OK, point taken - lets get back to discussion on the CATS entry

Indeed, I'd like to caution that people should make themselves aware of the full range of subjects the CATS system covers. Even if 'someone' has/had a CATS file reference, the nature of the 'red flag' cannot be known, and it certainly doesn't follow that it is a child-abuse flag. Domestic abuse is included, but where the family has children, that is potentially abuse of the child too.

Sex-abuse, and child sex-abuse are the extreme end of the scale, and while police may wisely START there, WE should not, the damage is exponentially increased.
I have an unexpected free day from my break and I've been catching up this morning and reading your posts.

I'm interested in your last sentence and for obvious reasons I'd like you to explain any professional knowledge/expertise you have that explains a CATS file to make such assumptions that police may wisely start there. I don't know if you've seen the child abuse scandals in UK and I'm asking you if you can truly give authoritative evidence that CATS files are opened as a regular thing or are you just happy to baffle with bullshit?

Post deleted by admin

Latest topics