PETITION ASKING FOR THE McCANNS TO BE CHARGED WITH NEGLECT

by RosieandSam 21.03.17 10:30

I can't see this posted anywhere in the forum (apologies if I have missed it)

Change Org petition asking Theresa May to have the McCanns charged with negect. Started by Hollie Flynn

https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-macanns-to-be-charged-with-neglect?recruiter=11477321&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-xs-share_petition-reason_msg

Although the petition itself is badly worded, what is interesting is that it gaining signatures at a fast rate which does indicate the change of mood (tide changing) that we have noticed in the media. When I saw the link in my Twitter feed at about 5.30pm yesterday, there were just over 52,000 signatures. This morning it has just over 103,000 signatures, therefore I think it is a barometer of the mood of the nation.

P.S. In the time it has taken me to write this post, signatures have now increased to 104,965 signatures.

by **Jill Havern** 21.03.17 10:38

The Petition is asking for them to be charged with neglect.

There was no neglect.

The McCanns did far worse than that and should be prosecuted for that.

That's why the Petition hasn't been posted on this forum.

I won't be signing it.

by RosieandSam 21.03.17 10:43

I understand your sentiments GEG, but not everyone has researched/read the case files as thoroughly as members of this forum. As I said, I see it as a barometer of the mood of the nation which has clearly changed over the past few months.

by JRP 21.03.17 10:53

Lots of people outraged, but sadly misinformed.
I'm not signing it either, whats the point of accusing them of something they didn't do.

by ChippyM 21.03.17 11:05

There is also a petition floating about that says people want them to take a lie detector test. What's the point of this if even the UK police didn't even want to question them again and it has no evidential value in court?

It's good the public perception has changed somewhat but they need to be thoroughly investigated over all possible scenarios in the case, the neglect angle gets them off the hook. All these knee jerk petitions play into the 'the press are inciting the trolls' scenario.

by whatsupdoc 21.03.17 11:06

Get'emGonçalo wrote:The Petition is asking for them to be charged with neglect.

There was no neglect.

The McCanns did far worse than that and should be prosecuted for that.

That's why the Petition hasn't been posted on this forum.

I won't be signing it.

Young children shouldn't be left alone.

I didn't go on holiday when my two were very young but we certainly made up for it later.

Using buggies is a good idea if they are young. McCanns were seen during the day with a dual buggy.

The name McCann shouldn't have been attached to any neglect issue. IMO a Plan B excuse.

by puzzled 21.03.17 11:26

RosieandSam wrote:I understand your sentiments GEG, but not everyone has researched/read the case files as thoroughly as members of this forum. As I said, I see it as a barometer of the mood of the nation which has clearly changed over the past few months.

I agree. Many people will not know many details about this case, and until recently, will probably have accepted the mainstream narrative. If there is a change in public attitude, that's all to the good. One thing may lead to another.

Another question is, at the moment, would it be possible to charge the McCanns with anything else? I'm no expert in the law, but the evidence which is available at the moment is all circumstantial, isn't it, and you need material evidence to make a case stand up in court. At the present time, is there enough evidence to arrest the McCanns for anything other than neglect? Maybe someone with knowledge of the law can shed light on this.

by hogwash 21.03.17 11:29

Maybe the McCanns want to be charged with neglect so that the PJ can't then charge them with a greater crime i.e concealing a corpse, staging an abduction, perverting the course of justice?

Maybe the McCanns fear they are being backed in to corner by people like Peter Mac and the turning tide of opinion in the media and that's why they're pushing the neglect stories?

Can you be tried for a greater crime if you've already been tried for a lesser crime?

by Carrry On Doctor 21.03.17 11:29

Get'emGonçalo wrote:The Petition is asking for them to be charged with neglect.

There was no neglect.

The McCanns did far worse than that and should be prosecuted for that.

That's why the Petition hasn't been posted on this forum.

I won't be signing it.

Totally agree.
Those who have signed it have swallowed the abduction story hook line and sinker.
The McScams know any prosecution for neglect wouldn't get off the ground, but it confirms the alibi they desperately need.
Its an own goal for truth and justice.

by Mirage 21.03.17 11:31

whatsupdoc wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:The Petition is asking for them to be charged with neglect.

There was no neglect.

The McCanns did far worse than that and should be prosecuted for that.

That's why the Petition hasn't been posted on this forum.

I won't be signing it.

Young children shouldn't be left alone.

I didn't go on holiday when my two were very young but we certainly made up for it later.

Using buggies is a good idea if they are young. McCanns were seen during the day with a dual buggy.

The name McCann shouldn't have been attached to any neglect issue. IMO a Plan B excuse.

I totally agree. This is a decoy and a lot of ducks will paddle down it oblivious to the implications.

This case did not attract top government attention because it was a neglect situation. If you fall for that ruse the establishment will continue to treat the public in the way they always have., as mindless plebs several moves behind in the chess game.

by Guest 21.03.17 12:03

Who is Hollie Flynn - does anyone know? The name seems to ring a bell.

Neglect = Abduction

No neglect = No abduction

This latest episode smacks of yet another team McCann orchestrated manoeuvre, a distraction - they've done it again, it works every time!

by Guest 21.03.17 12:16

How can the voice of the populace ever be taken seriously when you've got people out there who make an ass of the system established to give the populace a voice.

Be realistic - how can the UK government orchestrate a 'charge' against the McCanns? Above all else, the incident of Madeleine McCanns alleged disappearance happened in Portugal - the Portuguese authorities retain primacy. There is no proof, nor even evidence, to suggest the McCanns neglected their children on that fateful holiday - only their word.

This is just nonsense, people that stick their beaks in, without thorough knowledge of what why when and where, are a nuisance - more trouble than they're worth.

Mass hysteria!

by Phoebe 21.03.17 12:23

I suspect the McCanns would welcome being charged with neglect. Remember Gerry -"Did you say every 15 minutes? It's widely reported that we've said we were checking every half hour". Between Tracey's "tooth and nail" article (completely unnecessary as there was no plan to charge them with neglect) and now this timely petition, I smell a rat. The McCanns obstructed the investigation with changing statements, refusal to answer questions and refusal to attend a reconstruction. Perhaps "Hollie" should concentrate on these failings as a starting point.

by ChippyM 21.03.17 12:33

Didn't Goncalo Amaral say the reason they weren't done for neglect is that they would have had to have charged the whole Tapas lot with the same? This would obviously be hard to do under the political pressure of the time and under a great deal of scrutiny re. getting the correct evidence and having things watertight.

IMO the McCanns know this and realise the chances of a similar charge being brought 10 years on is zero. That's why they try and deflect debate to the neglect issue.

by **sandancer** 21.03.17 12:34

Unfortunately a lot of people thanks to the McCanns themselves and the media ( Hi Tracey ) focus on the " Neglect " angle without being prepared to look deeper .

Despite insisting they will " fight tooth and nail " the McCanns must be laughing their heads off as this plays right into their hands Neglect= Abduction !

This imho will go nowhere and maybe just maybe encourage those who sign to do more research and reach their own conclusions , not what they are told .

=============

Added by a Mod: Stopping by to address this question from 'puzzled' upthread:

Another question is, at the moment, would it be possible to charge the McCanns with anything else? I'm no expert in the law, but the evidence which is available at the moment is all circumstantial, isn't it, and you need material evidence to make a case stand up in court. At the present time, is there enough evidence to arrest the McCanns for anything other than neglect? Maybe someone with knowledge of the law can shed light on this.

Answers: 1. You do not always need to have 'material' evidence, even to convict someone of murder. Convictions - even on murder charges - have on occasions been obtained on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone. Examples have been given previously on this forum.
2. Some people would argue that there is enough evidence, forensic and circumstantial, to bring these charges against the McCanns: (A) preventing an autopsy (in Portugal, 'hiding a cadaver' or 'corpse concealment' and (B) perverting the course of justice.
There are, however, almost overwhelming obstacles to a prosecution for either offence, or any other offence, without either a 'smoking gun' or a confession - Mod

by Liz Eagles 21.03.17 12:55

Verdi wrote:How can the voice of the populace ever be taken seriously when you've got people out there who make an ass of the system established to give the populace a voice.

Be realistic - how can the UK government orchestrate a 'charge' against the McCanns? Above all else, the incident of Madeleine McCanns alleged disappearance happened in Portugal - the Portuguese authorities retain primacy. There is no proof, nor even evidence, to suggest the McCanns neglected their children on that fateful holiday - only their word.

This is just nonsense, people that stick their beaks in, without thorough knowledge of what why when and where, are a nuisance - more trouble than they're worth.

Mass hysteria!

No-one to my knowledge has fully explained the pretty sharp Ward of Court status of Madeleine McCann.

by Guest 21.03.17 13:08

aquila wrote:
Verdi wrote:How can the voice of the populace ever be taken seriously when you've got people out there who make an ass of the system established to give the populace a voice.

Be realistic - how can the UK government orchestrate a 'charge' against the McCanns? Above all else, the incident of Madeleine McCanns alleged disappearance happened in Portugal - the Portuguese authorities retain primacy. There is no proof, nor even evidence, to suggest the McCanns neglected their children on that fateful holiday - only their word.

This is just nonsense, people that stick their beaks in, without thorough knowledge of what why when and where, are a nuisance - more trouble than they're worth.

Mass hysteria!
No-one to my knowledge has fully explained the pretty sharp Ward of Court status of Madeleine McCann.

No but I'll wager it was because they thought it would afford them special privileges, like getting their hands on information concerning the investigation, which would otherwise remain secreted. They tried it with Leicestershire police files - abysmal failure!

There is an outline of wardship status recorded somewhere. Haven't time at the moment to look.

by Joss 21.03.17 13:24

Wow i didn't realise the general consensus was "no neglect" by the McC's. I also don't think it means because the McC's neglected their children it disproves other scenarios if you discount abduction.
So you are also all saying you don't agree with the thesis of Goncalo Amaral's findings either? Didn't he think MBM came to grief inside the holiday apartment re the findings of the cadaver & blood detection dogs inside the holiday apartment? Do you all think perhaps someone killed Madeleine inside the apartment and then covered it up. But by whom? The parents or someone else? And why in that case would all of them cover for the McC's or the McC's cover for anyone else for that matter?
Sorry, but maybe i'm missing something with all of this?
Also suspicion by the Portugese police that the children had been drugged? And for what reason would they drug the children unless they wanted to be kid free to enjoy themselves with their friends for the night?
http://truthofthelie.com/2008/07/madeleine-died-in-the-apartment/

by RosieandSam 21.03.17 13:32

MADELEINE McCANN - WARD OF COURT

The complete High Court Hearing

07 July 2008

Address by Tim Scott Q.C. to the High Court of Justice on 07 July 2008, In open court: International Family Law Group

https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/madeleine-ward-of-court-lp-information.html

by Joss 21.03.17 13:42

Phoebe wrote:I suspect the McCanns would welcome being charged with neglect. Remember Gerry -"Did you say every 15 minutes? It's widely reported that we've said we were checking every half hour". Between Tracey's "tooth and nail" article (completely unnecessary as there was no plan to charge them with neglect) and now this timely petition, I smell a rat. The McCanns obstructed the investigation with changing statements, refusal to answer questions and refusal to attend a reconstruction. Perhaps "Hollie" should concentrate on these failings as a starting point.

Parents can be prosecuted for wilful neglect if they leave a child unsupervised "in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health".
Punishment can range from a fine to 10 years imprisonment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2286498/Parents-face-jail-for-leaving-children-home-alone.html

by **Jill Havern** 21.03.17 13:44

RosieandSam wrote:MADELEINE McCANN - WARD OF COURT

The complete High Court Hearing

07 July 2008

Address by Tim Scott Q.C. to the High Court of Justice on 07 July 2008, In open court: International Family Law Group

https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/madeleine-ward-of-court-lp-information.html

Just to make it clear that this is not my blog - it's just someone who nicks my stuff and tries to make it look like mine.

This person also plagiarises HiDeHo's videos.

by Mirage 21.03.17 14:00

I suppose they've already lined up the expert who will advise they were "within the bounds of responsible parenting" that will get them off a negligence charge by a suitably sympathetic judge.

Ha ha, Another in a long line of so-called experts from Metodo 3 to Halligen, to Smethurst to Pike. Down to the cringeworthy barrister who told the high court she knew the child had been abducted because .... wait for it ... " my clients told me".

by puzzled 21.03.17 14:02

sandancer wrote:
Added by a Mod: Stopping by to address this question from 'puzzled' upthread:

Another question is, at the moment, would it be possible to charge the McCanns with anything else? I'm no expert in the law, but the evidence which is available at the moment is all circumstantial, isn't it, and you need material evidence to make a case stand up in court. At the present time, is there enough evidence to arrest the McCanns for anything other than neglect? Maybe someone with knowledge of the law can shed light on this.

Answers: 1. You do not always need to have 'material' evidence, even to convict someone of murder. Convictions - even on murder charges - have on occasions been obtained on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone. Examples have been given previously on this forum.
2. Some people would argue that there is enough evidence, forensic and circumstantial, to bring these charges against the McCanns: (A) preventing an autopsy (in Portugal, 'hiding a cadaver' or 'corpse concealment' and (B) perverting the course of justice.
There are, however, almost overwhelming obstacles to a prosecution for either offence, or any other offence, without either a 'smoking gun' or a confession - Mod

Thanks. So at the moment, it seems like there's precious little chance of the McCanns being arrested for anything, doesn't it?

by Liz Eagles 21.03.17 14:03

Verdi wrote:
aquila wrote:
Verdi wrote:How can the voice of the populace ever be taken seriously when you've got people out there who make an ass of the system established to give the populace a voice.

Be realistic - how can the UK government orchestrate a 'charge' against the McCanns? Above all else, the incident of Madeleine McCanns alleged disappearance happened in Portugal - the Portuguese authorities retain primacy. There is no proof, nor even evidence, to suggest the McCanns neglected their children on that fateful holiday - only their word.

This is just nonsense, people that stick their beaks in, without thorough knowledge of what why when and where, are a nuisance - more trouble than they're worth.

Mass hysteria!
No-one to my knowledge has fully explained the pretty sharp Ward of Court status of Madeleine McCann.
No but I'll wager it was because they thought it would afford them special privileges, like getting their hands on information concerning the investigation, which would otherwise remain secreted. They tried it with Leicestershire police files - abysmal failure!

There is an outline of wardship status recorded somewhere. Haven't time at the moment to look.

It seems the McCanns were advised on just about everything.

by jeanmonroe 21.03.17 14:29

Joss wrote:
Phoebe wrote:I suspect the McCanns would welcome being charged with neglect. Remember Gerry -"Did you say every 15 minutes? It's widely reported that we've said we were checking every half hour". Between Tracey's "tooth and nail" article (completely unnecessary as there was no plan to charge them with neglect) and now this timely petition, I smell a rat. The McCanns obstructed the investigation with changing statements, refusal to answer questions and refusal to attend a reconstruction. Perhaps "Hollie" should concentrate on these failings as a starting point.

Parents can be prosecuted for wilful neglect if they leave a child unsupervised "in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health".
Punishment can range from a fine to 10 years imprisonment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2286498/Parents-face-jail-for-leaving-children-home-alone.html

Portuguese Penal 'code'

"Article138" - Exposure or abandonment

1 – Whomever places another person’s life in danger:

a) By exposing her/him in a location that subjects her/him to a situation from which she/he cannot defend herself/himself on her/his own; or
b) Abandoning her/him without defence, due to age, physical deficiency or illness, whenever it was the agent’s (parent/guardian) duty to guard, watch over or assist the person;

is punished with a prison sentence of 1 to 5 years.

2 – If the fact is practised by an ascendant or a descendant, adopter or adoptee of the victim, the agent (parent/guardian) is punished with a prison sentence of 2 to 5 years.

3 – If the fact results in:

a) A serious offence to physical integrity, the agent (parent/guardian) is punished with a prison sentence of 2 to 8 years;
b) Death, the agent (parent/guardian) is punished with a prison sentence of 3 to 10 years."

It is very important to note that this crime has to be committed with 'dolo' (roughly: intent), as described under article 14 of the Portuguese Penal Code.

Quite 'how' the McCan'ts didn't 'commit' ANY of the 'above' is 'beyond' me!

by Phoebe 21.03.17 14:54

I've never understood why the McCanns, who lied about so much else, wouldn't have told another little porkie to save themselves if their big fear was being deemed negligent. Madeleine was allegedly seen alive and well by Gerry just after 9pm and he was still in the area talking to Jez at 9.15pm when Jane allegedly passed them. She walked around past Madeleine's window to enter by her front door. Russell again walked past on his way back for his reheated steak. No chance for abduction so far. Matt allegedly checked inside the apartment at 9.30pm-no sign of anything amiss. As Jane was now back next door but one, why didn't they ask her to say she did some listening checks outside Madeleine's instead of the made up tale of Tannerman? The McCanns could have easily claimed that first Russell, then Jane were listening out for their kids while minding Ella. That would have caused problems for negligence claims. I believe they persuaded Matt to lie about his check so why not lie about other checks? Why not also claim that the missing adult on previous nights was on constant checking patrol? To me, they welcomed negligence as without opportunity how could Madeleine have been abducted.

by Rogue-a-Tory 21.03.17 15:40

Agreed, I see the momentum surrounding neglect as a possible end game for OG.

Can’t find the abductor, he’s disappeared possibly dead. Charge the McCs with neglect, sentence that’s commuted due to mitigating circumstances – Charity work, ambassador, the country’s top heart researcher, model parents of the twins, the twins would suffer without Mr & Mrs etc. etc. Who knows, the prosecution might be fought and the defence wins.

But if convicted, once the sentence has been complete, leave them alone as their time has been done. The End

by Guest 21.03.17 15:45

RosieandSam wrote:MADELEINE McCANN - WARD OF COURT

The complete High Court Hearing

07 July 2008

Address by Tim Scott Q.C. to the High Court of Justice on 07 July 2008, In open court: International Family Law Group

https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/madeleine-ward-of-court-lp-information.html

Thank you for the swift response. This is the particular reference snipped..

Proceedings were started in this Court by a summons dated 17 May 2007. The sole purpose of the proceedings has been to call upon the extensive powers of the High Court to require assistance to be given in the search for a missing child. It is of course quite routine in the Family Division for such Orders to be made. For example in an appropriate case (though not this one) an Order can be made against a mobile phone company to produce the call record of a phone. It was never the parents' wish that the proceedings should become adversarial.

On 22 May 2007 an Order was made by you [4] in very wide terms requiring any person on whom the Order was served to disclose to the parents' solicitors any information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts. The Order contained a clause entitling any person served with it to apply to discharge or vary it.

Among the bodies on whom the Order was served was the Leicestershire Constabulary, who immediately expressed doubts as to whether the Order was intended to or could properly extend to them. In due course the parents’ solicitors issued a further application seeking clarification of this. On 02 April 2008 you gave directions which were intended to lead to a hearing at which this question would be resolved. This is that hearing.

As the preparations for this hearing advanced, it became clear that the Leicestershire Constabulary and other law enforcement agencies, while personally sympathetic to the position of the McCann's objected on principle to the disclosure of at least the great bulk of the information in their possession. They raised a number of legal arguments relating among other matters to the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police investigations. Both the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General intervened in the proceedings in order to advance their own arguments on issues of public policy.

Etc. etc. etc....

by Mirage 21.03.17 16:01

Verdi wrote:
RosieandSam wrote:MADELEINE McCANN - WARD OF COURT

The complete High Court Hearing

07 July 2008

Address by Tim Scott Q.C. to the High Court of Justice on 07 July 2008, In open court: International Family Law Group

https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/madeleine-ward-of-court-lp-information.html
Thank you for the swift response. This is the particular reference snipped..

Proceedings were started in this Court by a summons dated 17 May 2007. The sole purpose of the proceedings has been to call upon the extensive powers of the High Court to require assistance to be given in the search for a missing child. It is of course quite routine in the Family Division for such Orders to be made. For example in an appropriate case (though not this one) an Order can be made against a mobile phone company to produce the call record of a phone. It was never the parents' wish that the proceedings should become adversarial.

On 22 May 2007 an Order was made by you [4] in very wide terms requiring any person on whom the Order was served to disclose to the parents' solicitors any information which might assist in identifying Madeleine's whereabouts. The Order contained a clause entitling any person served with it to apply to discharge or vary it.

Among the bodies on whom the Order was served was the Leicestershire Constabulary, who immediately expressed doubts as to whether the Order was intended to or could properly extend to them. In due course the parents’ solicitors issued a further application seeking clarification of this. On 02 April 2008 you gave directions which were intended to lead to a hearing at which this question would be resolved. This is that hearing.

As the preparations for this hearing advanced, it became clear that the Leicestershire Constabulary and other law enforcement agencies, while personally sympathetic to the position of the McCann's objected on principle to the disclosure of at least the great bulk of the information in their possession. They raised a number of legal arguments relating among other matters to the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police investigations. Both the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General intervened in the proceedings in order to advance their own arguments on issues of public policy.

Etc. etc. etc....

While anxious to sift through files pertaining to themselves at Leicester Police HQ they never showed the slightest concern at hearing no feedback whatsoever from the hotline set up by Halligen. Hundreds of calls went unanswered while Halligen squandered around £500k of the fund, mainly on himself. Another crook they hired and they didn't even do their Suey McSueface thing.

Only one word for it. Ludicrous.

What an incurious pair of parents they are on the one hand. On the other, wanting to delve into the police investigation into themselves. Can't think why, can you?

by Mirage 21.03.17 16:26

All this guff about two people who were suspects in the case of their disappeared daughter using this WoC mechanism as leverage to look into the British police investigation into themselves is totally bizarre.

Can you imagine all those suspicious people in Broadchurch making the same court applications to ascertain how far up Creek Alley they were?

Mrs Justice Hogg oversaw this palaver, didn't she? If memory serves, she made an impassioned plea to the abductor to return Madeleine. I'm not a bit surprised.