Doing a McCann - Drunk mum spared jail for leaving boy at home as she was 'not as bad as the McCanns'

Well said, Smokeandmirrors.  This is a real sticking point and very hard indeed for anyone to argue that these three children under four years of age were not 'neglected'.

As a parallel - I tell you what, suppose I have three children under the age of four at this moment, in London, in an apartment. I put them to bed, and go down the road locally to the bar/restaurant.  I sit with friends, eat, have half a dozen bottles of wine or more at the table, and cannot see or hear my children.  I might pop back (or not) "to listen" or check, but they are alone virtually, unarguably from 8.30 pm to midnight.  That is more than three hours when anything could happen.  I already know that one, probably two, have woken in a previous night ["Why didn't you come .."?] but that does not cause me sufficient concern to change my plans.  I may also have heard that 'there were some burglaries' in the area recently.  That doesn't affect my judgment either.  I also turn down available baby-sitting options.

Am I a responsible parent?

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Ristretto wrote:Just a few comments about the original article.

Gareth Morgan, the lawyer, seems to miss a few pertinent points.

The McCanns were specifically cleared of the relevant crime of abandonment by the Portuguese prosecutors in the Archival report, That is why they were not prosecuted - the Attorney General lays out at length the reasons they had not committed neglect under Portuguese law. It was fully investigated and it was found that there was no case to bring against them.

As for the UK, the McCanns were not under English law at the time, so it is of no business to a UK court. And no matter what happens in a foreign jurisdiction that cannot be precedent for an English court to follow. This lawyer is simply trying to create a class issue to defend a drunk driver and attempting to deflect blame from her.

The reality is that the McCanns' actions in leaving Madeleine alone should have been a clear warning to everyone (including this woman) rather than an excuse for her to do the same.

I see you completely ignore this point though I deliberately underlined and emboldened it to highlight it. It is the key to the entire issue of Gareth Morgan's attempted defence of this woman. She is using the McCanns as an excuse rather than learning a lesson from their poor behaviour.

The main issues are that:

1) The McCanns were not in the UK, so there is no reason to say couple X in another country did Y and were not prosecuted. It is not actually legally relevant to the case being brought in this UK court.

An important point in regard to this lawyer's action in bringing the McCann case into his arguments but which you ignore.

2) The McCanns were not drunk. No witness or police officer reports them as being so. They may not have been reported as being drunk, but they admit to drinking before going out, Gerry had a beer and wine before going to the restaurant. There is a good chance that he was over the drink drive limit, and regardless of whether he was going to drive a car, they were still responsible for three toddlers. Is it responsible for both parents to be consuming alcohol whilst being responsible for three tiny children? Opinions on this will vary, but I guarantee there will be some people who think it irresponsible. 

Are you expecting to be taken seriously with that comment? Are you suggesting that no person who has consumed any alcohol at all should ever be responsible for children? In your haste to condemn the McCanns for normal drinking levels you are in fact condemning a very large number of parents who enjoy a few glasses of beer or wine of an evening. Every activity known to man is considered irresponsible by some people. That does not make those activities actually irresponsible. I might also guarantee that a very, very high proportion of parents have consumed alcohol while looking after children and no doubt some do consider it irresponsible but it is not neglect, nor is it illegal if done in moderation. The woman Gareth Morgan was defending was not drinking in moderation at all.

3) The McCanns were not in the process of committing another crime i.e drink driving, driving dangerously or leaving the scene of an accident and failing to report it.. 

Another point which you ignore but which is highly relevant to the case being discussed on this thread. The neglect and irresponsibility of this woman was compounded by her committing these other crimes. She could have been arrested and had her child taken into care for any of them.

4) The McCanns were fifty metres away, this woman was miles away As the crow flies, but we know as fact sight and sound were not possible. The actual travelling distance on foot was substantially greater. The distance as the crow flies is completely immaterial in this instance, the time it would require to physically reach the children and the fact that danger could not be seen or heard are the ONLY material facts relating to the distance.

No they are not the only material facts which are important. In my opinion this woman was doing something far more dangerous by travelling in a car whilst two and a half times over the drink drive limit. She was a considerable distance away, performing no checks at all. She could easily have been injured or killed whilst driving and would have left the child with no care at all of any sort. The McCanns were one minute walking distance from their children. She was miles away. A big difference. No-one is saying what the McCanns did was right. It most certainly wasn't and with hindsight they would not do it again. This woman had that hindsight and did what she did. There is no justification for that no matter what her lawyer might try to argue.

5) The McCanns left their children asleep in their beds, not in the living room. There is no material difference, especially in a single story apartment.

There is a greater expectation that a child will sleep for a longer period when tucked up in bed rather than when on a sofa in the living room. That has always been my experience anyway. I always found that the children slept better in bed and were less likely to wake for reasons such as needing the toilet or a drink when in bed.

8) Gareth Morgan, the woman's lawyer, claims she was absent only 20 minutes but she was heavily drunk (2 and a half times the drink drive limit) when the police eventually caught up with her after she fled the scene. So she had either been intoxicated whilst at home with this vulnerable child or had been drinking whilst driving. Her intoxication is clear evidence of neglecting her son. The McCanns had more than one drink, thus placing them at the level of intoxication regarding drink driving levels. Any more than that and it could be argued that the level of blood alcohol combined with responsibility of three toddlers who were out of sight and sound is clear evidence of neglect.

As I pointed out earlier, that statement condemns normal parents who have a few glasses of wine or beer when their children are sleeping. It is totally over-the-top and cannot seriously be defended or all parents who do this should be prosecuted for neglect. That would be ridiculous. The fact is this woman was seriously drunk and clearly neglecting her child whilst parents who are just drinking moderately are not neglecting their children.

7) Whilst Gareth Morgan cannot commit slander because he is in speaking in court (and therefore there is no possibility that the McCanns can take action against him), he can get into serious trouble as he has misled the court, by stating the McCanns were guilty of neglect. In the context in which he is speaking he is suggesting that they were guilty of the crime of neglect yet they were never charged or prosecuted for that crime and therefore are not guilty. He has lied.. Lawyers cannot lie about known facts to judges or juries. It would not be surprising to find that he is reported to the Solicitiors' Disicplinary Tribunal. He hasn't lied. It was a subjective judgement, quite clearly. Because someone was not charged or brought to court, does not mean that they did not carry out the neglect. To the contrary, the McCanns admit their neglect. NSPCC guidelines, in the absence of a statute on this matter is a good starting point. It states that small children should NEVER be left alone even for a few minutes. The NSPCC is widely respected across a number of social agencies. Their word on this topic is as close to a "law" on this particular point as you can get. The neglect by this group is further evidence by the fact that they informed the staff of their intention to leave toddlers alone. And they claim only to have planned checking half hourly. This shows an intent to leave tiny children alone and at risk of harm as part of their routine.

In the context of a court of law where he is discussing the crime of neglect to state that the McCanns neglected their children as Gareth Morgan did, is simply to lie. It is not simply a subjective judgement on his part in that context. It is a deliberate attempt to suggest that the McCanns are legally guilty of something they are not legally guilty of. And it is wrong to suggest that the McCanns have admitted any neglect. I would like you to show where that has happened if you believe it. I believe that they have done no more than suggest that they made an error of judgement. The NSPCC guidance is not law and has no relevance in a court of law which is where Mr Morgan was making his claims other than as guidance. He made a claim about the McCanns being guilty of the crime of neglect. He lied.

I remain convinced that the McCann's were wrong in their judgement about the safety of their actions.
But I remain equally convinced that this lawyer, Gareth Morgan, is also wrong in attempting to excuse the drunken and dangerous actions of this anonymous woman when the fact is she should have learned from the actions of the McCanns and should never have done what she did. To then try to use them as an excuse for her neglect is quite shameful.

@Ristretto

There is at least one documented occasion when the children were left alone and crying for 75 minutes. So that's a minus point then  

The McCanns were over 100 meters walk away, which even if they'd seen someone from the Tapas bar through the thick plastic, carrying away Madeleine, would not leave sufficient time to interrupt an abductor or even a burglar. I'm more than a little tired of the 50 meters as the crow flies. Straight across the swimming pool. So that's two down.

They need not be drunk to be slowed in their reactions, a couple of glasses of wine will do that.

I can't see what the difference is in leaving a child in the living room or the bedroom.  So that one won't fly.

The children's room wasn't visible from the Bar, being on the other side of the building.

Drink driving is a criminal offence, I believe that leaving vulnerable children unattended is a crime both in the UK and in Portugal. So the McCanns were in fact in the process of committing a crime punishable by up to two years in prison in Portugal.
Allegedly in the certain knowledge that the children had cried the previous night.  So might leaving distressed children count double? It does in my book.

Ristretto wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Ristretto wrote:Just a few comments about the original article.

Gareth Morgan, the lawyer, seems to miss a few pertinent points.

The McCanns were specifically cleared of the relevant crime of abandonment by the Portuguese prosecutors in the Archival report, That is why they were not prosecuted - the Attorney General lays out at length the reasons they had not committed neglect under Portuguese law. It was fully investigated and it was found that there was no case to bring against them.

As for the UK, the McCanns were not under English law at the time, so it is of no business to a UK court. And no matter what happens in a foreign jurisdiction that cannot be precedent for an English court to follow. This lawyer is simply trying to create a class issue to defend a drunk driver and attempting to deflect blame from her.

The reality is that the McCanns' actions in leaving Madeleine alone should have been a clear warning to everyone (including this woman) rather than an excuse for her to do the same.

I see you completely ignore this point though I deliberately underlined and emboldened it to highlight it. It is the key to the entire issue of Gareth Morgan's attempted defence of this woman. She is using the McCanns as an excuse rather than learning a lesson from their poor behaviour.

The main issues are that:

1) The McCanns were not in the UK, so there is no reason to say couple X in another country did Y and were not prosecuted. It is not actually legally relevant to the case being brought in this UK court.

An important point in regard to this lawyer's action in bringing the McCann case into his arguments but which you ignore.

2) The McCanns were not drunk. No witness or police officer reports them as being so. They may not have been reported as being drunk, but they admit to drinking before going out, Gerry had a beer and wine before going to the restaurant. There is a good chance that he was over the drink drive limit, and regardless of whether he was going to drive a car, they were still responsible for three toddlers. Is it responsible for both parents to be consuming alcohol whilst being responsible for three tiny children? Opinions on this will vary, but I guarantee there will be some people who think it irresponsible. 

Are you expecting to be taken seriously with that comment? Are you suggesting that no person who has consumed any alcohol at all should ever be responsible for children? In your haste to condemn the McCanns for normal drinking levels you are in fact condemning a very large number of parents who enjoy a few glasses of beer or wine of an evening. Every activity known to man is considered irresponsible by some people. That does not make those activities actually irresponsible. I might also guarantee that a very, very high proportion of parents have consumed alcohol while looking after children and no doubt some do consider it irresponsible but it is not neglect, nor is it illegal if done in moderation. The woman Gareth Morgan was defending was not drinking in moderation at all.

3) The McCanns were not in the process of committing another crime i.e drink driving, driving dangerously or leaving the scene of an accident and failing to report it.. 

Another point which you ignore but which is highly relevant to the case being discussed on this thread. The neglect and irresponsibility of this woman was compounded by her committing these other crimes. She could have been arrested and had her child taken into care for any of them.

4) The McCanns were fifty metres away, this woman was miles away As the crow flies, but we know as fact sight and sound were not possible. The actual travelling distance on foot was substantially greater. The distance as the crow flies is completely immaterial in this instance, the time it would require to physically reach the children and the fact that danger could not be seen or heard are the ONLY material facts relating to the distance.

No they are not the only material facts which are important. In my opinion this woman was doing something far more dangerous by travelling in a car whilst two and a half times over the drink drive limit. She was a considerable distance away, performing no checks at all. She could easily have been injured or killed whilst driving and would have left the child with no care at all of any sort. The McCanns were one minute walking distance from their children. She was miles away. A big difference. No-one is saying what the McCanns did was right. It most certainly wasn't and with hindsight they would not do it again. This woman had that hindsight and did what she did. There is no justification for that no matter what her lawyer might try to argue.

5) The McCanns left their children asleep in their beds, not in the living room. There is no material difference, especially in a single story apartment.

There is a greater expectation that a child will sleep for a longer period when tucked up in bed rather than when on a sofa in the living room. That has always been my experience anyway. I always found that the children slept better in bed and were less likely to wake for reasons such as needing the toilet or a drink when in bed.

8) Gareth Morgan, the woman's lawyer, claims she was absent only 20 minutes but she was heavily drunk (2 and a half times the drink drive limit) when the police eventually caught up with her after she fled the scene. So she had either been intoxicated whilst at home with this vulnerable child or had been drinking whilst driving. Her intoxication is clear evidence of neglecting her son. The McCanns had more than one drink, thus placing them at the level of intoxication regarding drink driving levels. Any more than that and it could be argued that the level of blood alcohol combined with responsibility of three toddlers who were out of sight and sound is clear evidence of neglect.

As I pointed out earlier, that statement condemns normal parents who have a few glasses of wine or beer when their children are sleeping. It is totally over-the-top and cannot seriously be defended or all parents who do this should be prosecuted for neglect. That would be ridiculous. The fact is this woman was seriously drunk and clearly neglecting her child whilst parents who are just drinking moderately are not neglecting their children.

7) Whilst Gareth Morgan cannot commit slander because he is in speaking in court (and therefore there is no possibility that the McCanns can take action against him), he can get into serious trouble as he has misled the court, by stating the McCanns were guilty of neglect. In the context in which he is speaking he is suggesting that they were guilty of the crime of neglect yet they were never charged or prosecuted for that crime and therefore are not guilty. He has lied.. Lawyers cannot lie about known facts to judges or juries. It would not be surprising to find that he is reported to the Solicitiors' Disicplinary Tribunal. He hasn't lied. It was a subjective judgement, quite clearly. Because someone was not charged or brought to court, does not mean that they did not carry out the neglect. To the contrary, the McCanns admit their neglect. NSPCC guidelines, in the absence of a statute on this matter is a good starting point. It states that small children should NEVER be left alone even for a few minutes. The NSPCC is widely respected across a number of social agencies. Their word on this topic is as close to a "law" on this particular point as you can get. The neglect by this group is further evidence by the fact that they informed the staff of their intention to leave toddlers alone. And they claim only to have planned checking half hourly. This shows an intent to leave tiny children alone and at risk of harm as part of their routine.

In the context of a court of law where he is discussing the crime of neglect to state that the McCanns neglected their children as Gareth Morgan did, is simply to lie. It is not simply a subjective judgement on his part in that context. It is a deliberate attempt to suggest that the McCanns are legally guilty of something they are not legally guilty of. And it is wrong to suggest that the McCanns have admitted any neglect. I would like you to show where that has happened if you believe it. I believe that they have done no more than suggest that they made an error of judgement. The NSPCC guidance is not law and has no relevance in a court of law which is where Mr Morgan was making his claims other than as guidance. He made a claim about the McCanns being guilty of the crime of neglect. He lied.

I remain convinced that the McCann's were wrong in their judgement about the safety of their actions.
But I remain equally convinced that this lawyer, Gareth Morgan, is also wrong in attempting to excuse the drunken and dangerous actions of this anonymous woman when the fact is she should have learned from the actions of the McCanns and should never have done what she did. To then try to use them as an excuse for her neglect is quite shameful.

He wasn't excusing her of drinking and driving. Quite the opposite. What her lawyer was arguing was that she shouldn't be sued for NEGLECT. As for driving while drunk, and causing an accident, she was banned from driving for 22 months and has to carry out community service.

Let's keep the facts, shall we?

Mirage wrote:

Ristretto wrote:

Mirage wrote:

Ristretto wrote:Just a few comments about the original article.

Gareth Morgan, the lawyer, seems to miss a few pertinent points.

The McCanns were specifically cleared of the relevant crime of abandonment by the Portuguese prosecutors in the Archival report, That is why they were not prosecuted - the Attorney General lays out at length the reasons they had not committed neglect under Portuguese law. It was fully investigated and it was found that there was no case to bring against them.

As for the UK, the McCanns were not under English law at the time, so it is of no business to a UK court. And no matter what happens in a foreign jurisdiction that cannot be precedent for an English court to follow. This lawyer is simply trying to create a class issue to defend a drunk driver and attempting to deflect blame from her.

The reality is that the McCanns' actions in leaving Madeleine alone should have been a clear warning to everyone (including this woman) rather than an excuse for her to do the same.

The main issues are that:

1) The McCanns were not in the UK, so there is no reason to say couple X in another country did Y and were not prosecuted. It is not actually legally relevant to the case being brought in this UK court.

2) The McCanns were not drunk. No witness or police officer reports them as being so.

3) The McCanns were not in the process of committing another crime i.e drink driving, driving dangerously or leaving the scene of an accident and failing to report it..

4) The McCanns were fifty metres away, this woman was miles away

5) The McCanns left their children asleep in their beds, not in the living room.

8) Gareth Morgan, the woman's lawyer, claims she was absent only 20 minutes but she was heavily drunk (2 and a half times the drink drive limit) when the police eventually caught up with her after she fled the scene. So she had either been intoxicated whilst at home with this vulnerable child or had been drinking whilst driving. Her intoxication is clear evidence of neglecting her son.

7) Whilst Gareth Morgan cannot commit slander because he is in speaking in court (and therefore there is no possibility that the McCanns can take action against him), he can get into serious trouble as he has misled the court, by stating the McCanns were guilty of neglect. In the context in which he is speaking he is suggesting that they were guilty of the crime of neglect yet they were never charged or prosecuted for that crime and therefore are not guilty. He has lied.. Lawyers cannot lie about known facts to judges or juries. It would not be surprising to find that he is reported to the Solicitiors' Disicplinary Tribunal.

Just when you thought sophistry had reached its zenith, another invitation to pass through distorting mirrors and enter world McCann.

Sorry, do you have an actual response to the points I made? Or are you going to pretend the points don't exist?

No, I don't.

The hour I would spend answering your points is not worth the personal effort to me  or to the cause of justice in general. One recognises intractability when one meets it these days. There is no meeting point. No launch pad of premise. To enter dialogue with you would be the equivalent of slugging it out in a boxing ring. Not something I'm prepared to do .

I am entitled to draw a line in the sand to show readers coming to the forum that I disagree with your world view. Rather like Kate McCann herself - see I'm learning - I  knowingly choose to answer "no comment".

Your points exist. That is all that should matter to you. They have arrived on an energetic wave of unmistakeable signals. Readers read them and agree or disagree.  I disagree with your thinking en bloc.

The fact that I issue a grunt in response will have to suffice. Grunts can sometimes be eloquent, you know,  when moral relativism raises its ugly head .

My existential choice today, therefore, is that for 24 hours, at least,  the Mcs, and any wider evidence of their skewed morals, shall not exist in my world.

Grunts are not eloquent. They are animalistic and crude responses. They are used by humans when they are incapable of responding with proper sentences.

It is always interesting to see this kind of reaction, though.

The lawyer is simply attempting to deflect from his client's gross culpability (two and a half times over the drink drive limit, committing offence after offence, putting herself in the position where she may not even have returned to the apartment if the accident had been more serious etc.) whilst avoiding the reality that she should have taken a serious warning from what happened in the McCann case.

I am writing about the article in question and not merely trying to defend or attack the McCanns for their actions. And the article shows a very shameful action on the part of that lawyer and his client, in my opinion. I have offered my reasons for believing that and you, instead of discussing the matter, have offered your grunt in response. I find that interesting.

If the definition of 'within the bounds of responsible parenting' as espoused by GM, is 'leaving THREE children, all under 4 years old, alone, in a totally unlocked apartment, out of eyesight and earshot, in a foreign country'

Then what definition should be given to a parent, or parents, that stay in a house, apartment, with a baby monitor, within earshot at all times, who reacts to every cough or splutter, from the children in their bedroom?

Irresponsible parenting?

sallypelt wrote:

Ristretto wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Ristretto wrote:Just a few comments about the original article.

Gareth Morgan, the lawyer, seems to miss a few pertinent points.

The McCanns were specifically cleared of the relevant crime of abandonment by the Portuguese prosecutors in the Archival report, That is why they were not prosecuted - the Attorney General lays out at length the reasons they had not committed neglect under Portuguese law. It was fully investigated and it was found that there was no case to bring against them.

As for the UK, the McCanns were not under English law at the time, so it is of no business to a UK court. And no matter what happens in a foreign jurisdiction that cannot be precedent for an English court to follow. This lawyer is simply trying to create a class issue to defend a drunk driver and attempting to deflect blame from her.

The reality is that the McCanns' actions in leaving Madeleine alone should have been a clear warning to everyone (including this woman) rather than an excuse for her to do the same.

I see you completely ignore this point though I deliberately underlined and emboldened it to highlight it. It is the key to the entire issue of Gareth Morgan's attempted defence of this woman. She is using the McCanns as an excuse rather than learning a lesson from their poor behaviour.

The main issues are that:

1) The McCanns were not in the UK, so there is no reason to say couple X in another country did Y and were not prosecuted. It is not actually legally relevant to the case being brought in this UK court.

An important point in regard to this lawyer's action in bringing the McCann case into his arguments but which you ignore.

2) The McCanns were not drunk. No witness or police officer reports them as being so. They may not have been reported as being drunk, but they admit to drinking before going out, Gerry had a beer and wine before going to the restaurant. There is a good chance that he was over the drink drive limit, and regardless of whether he was going to drive a car, they were still responsible for three toddlers. Is it responsible for both parents to be consuming alcohol whilst being responsible for three tiny children? Opinions on this will vary, but I guarantee there will be some people who think it irresponsible. 

Are you expecting to be taken seriously with that comment? Are you suggesting that no person who has consumed any alcohol at all should ever be responsible for children? In your haste to condemn the McCanns for normal drinking levels you are in fact condemning a very large number of parents who enjoy a few glasses of beer or wine of an evening. Every activity known to man is considered irresponsible by some people. That does not make those activities actually irresponsible. I might also guarantee that a very, very high proportion of parents have consumed alcohol while looking after children and no doubt some do consider it irresponsible but it is not neglect, nor is it illegal if done in moderation. The woman Gareth Morgan was defending was not drinking in moderation at all.

3) The McCanns were not in the process of committing another crime i.e drink driving, driving dangerously or leaving the scene of an accident and failing to report it.. 

Another point which you ignore but which is highly relevant to the case being discussed on this thread. The neglect and irresponsibility of this woman was compounded by her committing these other crimes. She could have been arrested and had her child taken into care for any of them.

4) The McCanns were fifty metres away, this woman was miles away As the crow flies, but we know as fact sight and sound were not possible. The actual travelling distance on foot was substantially greater. The distance as the crow flies is completely immaterial in this instance, the time it would require to physically reach the children and the fact that danger could not be seen or heard are the ONLY material facts relating to the distance.

No they are not the only material facts which are important. In my opinion this woman was doing something far more dangerous by travelling in a car whilst two and a half times over the drink drive limit. She was a considerable distance away, performing no checks at all. She could easily have been injured or killed whilst driving and would have left the child with no care at all of any sort. The McCanns were one minute walking distance from their children. She was miles away. A big difference. No-one is saying what the McCanns did was right. It most certainly wasn't and with hindsight they would not do it again. This woman had that hindsight and did what she did. There is no justification for that no matter what her lawyer might try to argue.

5) The McCanns left their children asleep in their beds, not in the living room. There is no material difference, especially in a single story apartment.

There is a greater expectation that a child will sleep for a longer period when tucked up in bed rather than when on a sofa in the living room. That has always been my experience anyway. I always found that the children slept better in bed and were less likely to wake for reasons such as needing the toilet or a drink when in bed.

8) Gareth Morgan, the woman's lawyer, claims she was absent only 20 minutes but she was heavily drunk (2 and a half times the drink drive limit) when the police eventually caught up with her after she fled the scene. So she had either been intoxicated whilst at home with this vulnerable child or had been drinking whilst driving. Her intoxication is clear evidence of neglecting her son. The McCanns had more than one drink, thus placing them at the level of intoxication regarding drink driving levels. Any more than that and it could be argued that the level of blood alcohol combined with responsibility of three toddlers who were out of sight and sound is clear evidence of neglect.

As I pointed out earlier, that statement condemns normal parents who have a few glasses of wine or beer when their children are sleeping. It is totally over-the-top and cannot seriously be defended or all parents who do this should be prosecuted for neglect. That would be ridiculous. The fact is this woman was seriously drunk and clearly neglecting her child whilst parents who are just drinking moderately are not neglecting their children.

7) Whilst Gareth Morgan cannot commit slander because he is in speaking in court (and therefore there is no possibility that the McCanns can take action against him), he can get into serious trouble as he has misled the court, by stating the McCanns were guilty of neglect. In the context in which he is speaking he is suggesting that they were guilty of the crime of neglect yet they were never charged or prosecuted for that crime and therefore are not guilty. He has lied.. Lawyers cannot lie about known facts to judges or juries. It would not be surprising to find that he is reported to the Solicitiors' Disicplinary Tribunal. He hasn't lied. It was a subjective judgement, quite clearly. Because someone was not charged or brought to court, does not mean that they did not carry out the neglect. To the contrary, the McCanns admit their neglect. NSPCC guidelines, in the absence of a statute on this matter is a good starting point. It states that small children should NEVER be left alone even for a few minutes. The NSPCC is widely respected across a number of social agencies. Their word on this topic is as close to a "law" on this particular point as you can get. The neglect by this group is further evidence by the fact that they informed the staff of their intention to leave toddlers alone. And they claim only to have planned checking half hourly. This shows an intent to leave tiny children alone and at risk of harm as part of their routine.

In the context of a court of law where he is discussing the crime of neglect to state that the McCanns neglected their children as Gareth Morgan did, is simply to lie. It is not simply a subjective judgement on his part in that context. It is a deliberate attempt to suggest that the McCanns are legally guilty of something they are not legally guilty of. And it is wrong to suggest that the McCanns have admitted any neglect. I would like you to show where that has happened if you believe it. I believe that they have done no more than suggest that they made an error of judgement. The NSPCC guidance is not law and has no relevance in a court of law which is where Mr Morgan was making his claims other than as guidance. He made a claim about the McCanns being guilty of the crime of neglect. He lied.

I remain convinced that the McCann's were wrong in their judgement about the safety of their actions.
But I remain equally convinced that this lawyer, Gareth Morgan, is also wrong in attempting to excuse the drunken and dangerous actions of this anonymous woman when the fact is she should have learned from the actions of the McCanns and should never have done what she did. To then try to use them as an excuse for her neglect is quite shameful.

He wasn't excusing her of drinking and driving. Quite the opposite. What he lawyer was arguing was that she shouldn't be sued for NEGLECT. As for driving while drunk, and causing an accident, she was banned from driving for 22 months and has to carry out community service.

Let's keep the facts, shall we?

He was attempting to excuse her drunken and dangerous actions that were the basis of her clear neglect of her child. Let's get the facts absolutely straight. It was the drunkenness in this case that was the root cause of her neglect.

As for her punishement, that is irrelevant to the fact that the lawyer was trying to mitigate her neglect by suggesting the McCanns did the same or worse. They did not. Her actions were far more dangerous to herself and her child.

no neglect=no abduction.

Smoke and mirrorsi picked up on Kate saying that about relationship,yet another strange way to put it.

They are constantly using distancing language when speaking of her.

I know a medic quite well and he also has a strange way of speaking and understanding children.I always found it odd.

Ristresso, can you explain in your own words, what YOU think happened to Madeliene McCann, and why it happened?

tigger wrote:@Ristretto

There is at least one documented occasion when the children were left alone and crying for 75 minutes. So that's a minus point then  

The McCanns were over 100 meters walk away, which even if they'd seen someone from the Tapas bar through the thick plastic, carrying away Madeleine, would not leave sufficient time to interrupt an abductor or even a burglar. I'm more than a little tired of the 50 meters as the crow flies. Straight across the swimming pool. So that's two down.

They need not be drunk to be slowed in their reactions, a couple of glasses of wine will do that.

I can't see what the difference is in leaving a child in the living room or the bedroom.  So that one won't fly.

The children's room wasn't visible from the Bar, being on the other side of the building.

Drink driving is a criminal offence, I believe that leaving vulnerable children unattended is a crime both in the UK and in Portugal. So the McCanns were in fact in the process of committing a crime punishable by up to two years in prison in Portugal.
Allegedly in the certain knowledge that the children had cried the previous night.  So might leaving distressed children count double? It does in my book.

Your documented occasion might be relevant if there was any proof at all that the child Mrs Fenn heard was indeed one of the McCann children. I don't believe there is any such proof. There were other children in the block and she does not specify precisely which child she heard, or exactly which apartment the child was in.

And like another poster you seem to be suggesting that no parent who has drunk even moderately should have any responsibility for children whilst under the influence. That is silly and would mean that half the parents in the UK would have to be prosecuted for neglect.

As for the McCanns committing a crime in Portugal. You are simply wrong. Read the Archival report where the AG sets out very clearly precisely why the McCanns were not if fact guilty of any crime of neglect or abandoning their children in Portuguese law. It is quite enlightening.

Ristretto wrote:

tigger wrote:@Ristretto

There is at least one documented occasion when the children were left alone and crying for 75 minutes. So that's a minus point then  

The McCanns were over 100 meters walk away, which even if they'd seen someone from the Tapas bar through the thick plastic, carrying away Madeleine, would not leave sufficient time to interrupt an abductor or even a burglar. I'm more than a little tired of the 50 meters as the crow flies. Straight across the swimming pool. So that's two down.

They need not be drunk to be slowed in their reactions, a couple of glasses of wine will do that.

I can't see what the difference is in leaving a child in the living room or the bedroom.  So that one won't fly.

The children's room wasn't visible from the Bar, being on the other side of the building.

Drink driving is a criminal offence, I believe that leaving vulnerable children unattended is a crime both in the UK and in Portugal. So the McCanns were in fact in the process of committing a crime punishable by up to two years in prison in Portugal.
Allegedly in the certain knowledge that the children had cried the previous night.  So might leaving distressed children count double? It does in my book.

Your documented occasion might be relevant if there was any proof at all that the child Mrs Fenn heard was indeed one of the McCann children. I don't believe there is any such proof. There were other children in the block and she does not specify precisely which child she heard, or exactly which apartment the child was in.

And like another poster you seem to be suggesting that no parent who has drunk even moderately should have any responsibility for children whilst under the influence. That is silly and would mean that half the parents in the UK would have to be prosecuted for neglect.

As for the McCanns committing a crime in Portugal. You are simply wrong. Read the Archival report where the AG sets out very clearly precisely why the McCanns were not if fact guilty of any crime of neglect or abandoning their children in Portuguese law. It is quite enlightening.

McCanns may face neglect charges

The parents of Madeleine McCann could face charges of neglecting their daughter the night she vanished.


Published 30th May 2008

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/39242/McCanns-may-face-neglect-charges

sallypelt wrote:Ristresso, can you explain in your own words, what YOU think happened to Madeliene McCann, and why it happened?

Not having any insight other than the two sources available to us all, the news media reports (which have so often been shown to be erroneous) and the Police Files which while contain evidence are not complete and are not proof of anything, I struggle to understand what happened in PDL that night.

I don't automatically believe any witness statement as being entirely correct as I know that most witnesses make mistakes of memory no matter how hard they try to tell the story as it happened. Nor do witnesses observe things as clearly as we might expect (I remember being caught out by a video of people catching a ball when a bear walks past unnoticed).

I don't know whether the McCanns were involved in the disappearance. I've never seen anything to prove that they were but it is a possibility.

I don't know if an abductor was involved. Again I've seen no proof of such an abductor, though it is interesting that the police seem to be pursuing that line of enquiry.

I suspect Madeleine is dead now, though can understand why her parents would still hope that she is not as I feel that is how I would react, wanting absolute proof before giving up on my child.

It is simply a mystery to me. That is probably why I still take an interest in the case.

Mr Craig said: "His mother accepts full responsibility and knows that a potentially catastrophic situation could have developed at home while she was out

.

Nothing to do with being drunk, the mother was not in the house. You said yourself Ristretto many parents drink whilst at home, it was the fact that she was not at home to watch her child.

Risetto  said: Grunts are not eloquent. They are animalistic and crude responses. They are used by humans when they are incapable of responding with proper sentences.

-------------------------
Ok, how about I roll round on the floor and rage like a bull?
Or, maybe,  bash up a bed and bang my fists on the wall?
Animalistic or not, I wouldn't leave my litter of babies to the local predators.
That's 3 sentences (4 including this one).

The main problem for me is not the question of neglect - if indeed that is what happened and that is far from clear cut - but Team McCann's behaviour ever since.

The fund set up in near record time presupposing that Madeleine would not be found, barely hidden hilarity at inappropriate times, bully boy tactics to silence people who don't believe them - I could go on and on.

We could debate the neglect issue till the cows come home but, even if we all came to an agreement about that, there would still be all the other contentious issues with the case.

candyfloss wrote:

Ristretto wrote:

tigger wrote:@Ristretto

There is at least one documented occasion when the children were left alone and crying for 75 minutes. So that's a minus point then  

The McCanns were over 100 meters walk away, which even if they'd seen someone from the Tapas bar through the thick plastic, carrying away Madeleine, would not leave sufficient time to interrupt an abductor or even a burglar. I'm more than a little tired of the 50 meters as the crow flies. Straight across the swimming pool. So that's two down.

They need not be drunk to be slowed in their reactions, a couple of glasses of wine will do that.

I can't see what the difference is in leaving a child in the living room or the bedroom.  So that one won't fly.

The children's room wasn't visible from the Bar, being on the other side of the building.

Drink driving is a criminal offence, I believe that leaving vulnerable children unattended is a crime both in the UK and in Portugal. So the McCanns were in fact in the process of committing a crime punishable by up to two years in prison in Portugal.
Allegedly in the certain knowledge that the children had cried the previous night.  So might leaving distressed children count double? It does in my book.

Your documented occasion might be relevant if there was any proof at all that the child Mrs Fenn heard was indeed one of the McCann children. I don't believe there is any such proof. There were other children in the block and she does not specify precisely which child she heard, or exactly which apartment the child was in.

And like another poster you seem to be suggesting that no parent who has drunk even moderately should have any responsibility for children whilst under the influence. That is silly and would mean that half the parents in the UK would have to be prosecuted for neglect.

As for the McCanns committing a crime in Portugal. You are simply wrong. Read the Archival report where the AG sets out very clearly precisely why the McCanns were not if fact guilty of any crime of neglect or abandoning their children in Portuguese law. It is quite enlightening.

McCanns may face neglect charges

The parents of Madeleine McCann could face charges of neglecting their daughter the night she vanished.


Published 30th May 2008

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/39242/McCanns-may-face-neglect-charges

Well we do know that the Express and Star group were rather peeved with the McCanns around that time don't we?

But are you seriously suggesting that story still holds? Are you not aware that it was completely removed as being a possibility in the Archival Report?

The Star story you refer to states:

The parents of Madeleine McCann could face charges of neglecting their daughter the night she vanished.

The revelation came in official court documents detailing the lines of inquiry Portuguese police are concentrating on.

The papers confirm that officers are considering bringing “abandonment” charges against the couple.

Kate, 40, and Gerry, 39, were dining out with friends when Madeleine disappeared from their holiday apartment in May last year. She was three at the time – her fifth birthday was on May 12.

The documents also reveal that the police are following possible lines of inquiry involving abduction, murder and concealment of a corpse.

But later that same year the Archival Report from the State Prosecutor stated the following:

It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated

and laid out very clearly why in fact the Proscutor believed that the McCanns were not guilty of any such crime and why they could not be charged for such a crime.

I am afraid that the posting of old headlines to bolster your case when the Police Files themselves demonstrate that those headlines no longer are valid is not getting anyone very far at all towards the truth.

Ristretto

Would Madeleine McCann, in your opinion, have 'disappeared' if her parents had stayed in the apartment, drinking or not, with her and the twins, the whole of the evening/night, of 3rd May 2007?

Mirage wrote:Risetto  said: Grunts are not eloquent. They are animalistic and crude responses. They are used by humans when they are incapable of responding with proper sentences.

-------------------------
Ok, how about I roll round on the floor and rage like a bull?
Or, maybe,  bash up a bed and bang my fists on the wall?
Animalistic or not, I wouldn't leave my litter of babies to the local predators.
That's 3 sentences (4 including this one).

Ignore this Mirage, I find you to be one of the most articulate and eloquent posters on this forum.

candyfloss wrote:

Mr Craig said: "His mother accepts full responsibility and knows that a potentially catastrophic situation could have developed at home while she was out

.

Nothing to do with being drunk, the mother was not in the house.  You said yourself Ristretto many parents drink whilst at home, it was the fact that she was not at home to watch her child.

Any comment ristretto?

Has Ristretto been 'abducted'?

Not answering my question whilst demanding answers from people to his/her questions.

I have to ask why would anyone want to defend the "leaving of very young children on their own ?

It is quite obversely wrong, nothing to be gained from condoning it.

The question is are the parents guilts of child neglect or concealing a body or worse?

This mum was arrested, taken to a police station and cautioned for child neglect. She left her two-year-old home alone for 20 minutes to walk her other children to school This was a one off situation, a friend usually walked them but was sick and unable to take them on that day. The little boy was unharmed.

Mum of home-alone tot rescued from attic window 'a good parent'

Croydon Advertiser
July 20, 2013

A HOUSEWIFE whose two-year-old son climbed out of an attic window after she left him home alone, is a "very good parent", her husband has said.
This terrifying image shows the toddler dangling from a top floor window nearly 20ft above the ground. The boy climbed out on to the ledge after being left at home while his mother took her other children to school at 9.15am on Monday.

Horrified neighbour Tracey McLaren spotted the toddler sitting on the window ledge and tried to keep him calm before the fire brigade arrived. As police forced entry through the front door of the house in Egerton Road, South Norwood, firefighters used a ladder to climb up and safely rescue the child. The child's mother, 37, returned home after 20 minutes and was arrested and taken to a police station before being cautioned for child neglect. Speaking at the family home, her husband told the Advertiser what happened was a "one off" and would never happen again. We have agreed not to identify the family.

The father-of-four, who was at work in Harrow when the drama unfolded, explained his wife had "panicked" after the friend who usually walks their children to school had called in sick. "Most of the kids had managed to wake up and get ready pretty quickly but our youngest son didn't want to get up," he said. "Time was ticking so – and this was a mishap, once in a life time – she chanced it and took them to school without him.
"We're humans, we all make mistakes."
The inquisitive toddler woke up and climbed the stairs to the attic, which the family use as a storage room. "We had put lots of boxes there to cover [the window] but he took it all out," said his father. "There were all these bags and he was even throwing things outside as well. He cleared everything to get outside. I don't know how he did it."

While out on the ledge, the little explorer acted as though nothing was wrong; waving and saying hello to the crowd of people gathering outside. The couple have since been recovering from the shock at home, though their son is as bubbly and adventurous as ever. "I could understand why the police punished her," said his father, "but it would have been nice if she had been let off because it was a one off."
"We've got four children and it's a very difficult situation with what she has been through. I fully support her. She's a very good parent.
"Being a housewife is the toughest job in the world. Particularly with our children, it's impossible."
"This was like a 'never event'. Something which should never happen but sometimes does. People make mistakes. It will never happen again. It's a warning about what can happen. You risk it and you get hit, unfortunately." Inspector Harvey Martin said the decision to leave the child at home had been "extremely misguided". He added: "Fortunately in this case, the child came to no harm, but were it not for members of the public seeing him in danger and contacting emergency services, we could have been talking about a much more serious incident."
http://legacy.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Mum-home-tot-rescued-attic-window-good-parent/story-19542364-detail/story.html#ixzz2qTAt2os7

I certainly think that the neglect story was made to up as there was no other way to explain Madeleine's disappearance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3eAJnjiD6g

Ristretto said :

No-one is saying what the McCanns did was right.

but as recently as Crimewatch, Kate McCann is on record as saying that they hadn't done anything wrong, (IMO by definition that it must have been right,) and that the person who had done wrong was the one who took her.

I am glad that this lawyer had the guts to speak up and say what many of us feel. I would have retained a lot more sympathy for the McCanns if they had ever admitted that their behaviour was wrong, and made a plea to parents to put their children first.

Ristretto wrote:

Your documented occasion might be relevant if there was any proof at all that the child Mrs Fenn heard was indeed one of the McCann children. I don't believe there is any such proof. There were other children in the block and she does not specify precisely which child she heard, or exactly which apartment the child was in.

Mrs Fenn's statement:

Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below. At about 23.45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she was quite worried as the crying had gone on for more than an hour and had gradually got worse.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm