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

mouse wrote:Sadly Petermac I too thought it would only be a matter of time until someone trotted out this line of defense. I'm only surprised it hasn't been used before....or maybe it has and we haven't heard about it. 

Anyway, what struck me was the response from Team Mccan's side - at how outrageous these comments were from the lawyer!!! (is outrage this years ludicrous?) I mean talk about spinning it back on to the feelings of the perfect untouchable parenting skills of K & G - the victims once again....Where were the feelings for the little child left on his own at home? Nothing from Kate who is a patron of missing people/children. And the comparisons were very different apparently - well I agree for once. K & G left not one five year old but a 3 year old with two little under twos - left them in an apartment in a foreign country (allegedly) every night of their holidays to go out and drink. 

What is the difference? Not much as far as I can see - both took risks leaving their children on their own - but K & G being doctors had more reason to know that doing this could be judged as child neglect - they took that risk and pointing the finger at the so-called abductor is not going to change the bare facts that just won't go away - that they facilitated the disappearance of their daughter - whether by an abductor .....or not.

Couldn't agree more Mouse. Reading this garbage, the sense of entitlement shrieks at you. Just who the bl***y hell do these people think they are?
Here's what the pal had to say. I'm bolding the shrieky bits so cover your ears:

Last night a close "pal" of the couple explained to a national newspaper: “The comments are insensitive and plain wrong. Kate and Gerry will be furious. The circumstances are totally different and not comparable.
“If Kate and Gerry were guilty of child neglect, and they were absolutely not, they would have been dealt with.
"As it is, there are two police inquiries in two different countries trying to find out what happened to Madeleine, and comments made by a lawyer in an unrelated case is offensive, outrageous and inaccurate.
-------------------------
What a rant!

bold mine :

  "It is his opinion, but it is a disgrace that a defence lawyer is commenting on Kate and Gerry in this way. They will not be happy about that.”

  

  1.  NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!!


[ one of them at least will be " furious" ]


that lawyer...how very dare he ? !



2.  eta... pity they did not use the  "LAST PHOTO " of Maddie  near that  " last picture of Hayley "  headline.


3.  I still am waiting to hear or read this re either McCann parent  :

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

suzyjohnson wrote:

russiandoll wrote:quote mirage

  It's true the woman left a vulnerable child, went out, had a fair bit to drink and experienced a helluva car crash.

 I did not read it that way, more that she was over the limit when she drove to the cashpoint, not that she was out for the time it would take her to get over the limit...I drew the inference that she had been drinking at home. Perhaps you did also, what you wrote however suggests that she got drunk after leaving the house.

 Only mentioning this because it has a bearing on how long she intended to leave the children alone, am not excusing her drink-driving or irresponsibility at all.

 
Yes, my understanding was that she was intending to get a takeaway, not that she had left her son all evening, hence the lawyers comment that the McCanns had left their children for a longer time.

I was being a bit sarcastic. It was a reference to KM - car crash as in "it's a disaster". I had thought the woman in the case had pranged her car, though. Happy to be corrected.

mysterion wrote:Isn`t the other difference that the McCanns left the apartment unlocked facilitating abduction?

The big problem is that the public perception is that the tapas bar was in close proximity so it wasn`t abandonment or neglect. Until that is corrected nothing will change.

No wonder that is the perception when the media allowed that mantra to go repeatedly unchallenged. I have a list of sycophants drawn up and when/if the day dawns, they will receive reminders of their dereliction of duty to the child.

Two threads on same subject merged.

It`s the tone of the TM response that is very poor such as "K&G will be furious" and "They wil not be happy about that". Sounds patronising and priveliged.

Mirage I understand your sarcasm... indulge in it myself when some of what we read reaches a point where it beggars belief.

  Just wanted to clarify the intent of this woman who only seemed to want to take the time to drive to a cashpoint[ not sure how far away] and get a meal.

 The Mcs  friend might argue that she was too far away and drunk to be of any use in an emergency.

 Even too drunk if at home to be any use.

 However we do not know that she was prone to this behaviour, whereas the Mcs admit to repeatedly being at a location from which they could neither see nor hear their children.

 So, drunk or sober, any time between checks a disaster could have happened, and it did.

 Good on that lawyer.

mysterion wrote:It`s the tone of the TM response that is very poor such as "K&G will be furious" and "They wil not be happy about that". Sounds patronising and priveliged.

 it is their sense of entitlement you know.

  Hubris will be their undoing eventually.

So do we have a new law now about leaving children on their own? Is this the new get out of jail card for child neglectors? Have the Mccanns set a new presidence? If so - no need for babysitters anymore.....Seriously though - this is dangerous stuff. So dangerous perhaps we ought to hear some clarification from government as to what are the legal guidelines in this country about leaving children. Just some clarification so that we can dismiss this Lawyer's comments in court that almost states 'doing a Mccann' is now legally accepted in this country.

Oh and 'Mirage' I am feeling your rant this morning.

daffodil wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Only 3 comments on this article so far, here is one of them.......


***? Are the courts so stupid that they believe this nonsense? Obviously. Nothing like the McCanns, who were a short distance away dining with friends and checking on their children, not driving round the streets more than twice over the driving limit. Suckers



http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/limit-crash-mum-left-year-old-home/story-20436401-detail/story.html[/quote

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

Just like being in their back garden really,

Conveniently forgetting that as a result of the McCanns actions a 3 year old is missing!

void wrote:

lj wrote:"Doing a McCann" made the urban dictionary years ago. Maybe it will make Merriam-Webster this year.

Urban dictionary is old news. Its in the oxford dictionary since 2012

Isn't "years ago" the same as old news?

As what is it in the Oxford dictionary?

russiandoll wrote:Mirage I understand your sarcasm... indulge in it myself when some of what we read reaches a point where it beggars belief.

  Just wanted to clarify the intent of this woman who only seemed to want to take the time to drive to a cashpoint[ not sure how far away] and get a meal.

 The Mcs  friend might argue that she was too far away and drunk to be of any use in an emergency.

 Even too drunk if at home to be any use.

 However we do not know that she was prone to this behaviour, whereas the Mcs admit to repeatedly being at a location from which they could neither see nor hear their children.

 So, drunk or sober, any time between checks a disaster could have happened, and it did.

 Good on that lawyer.

Agree with all you've said RD. And, yes I do find it so frustrating all the time. Have to have an outlet for it! 

russiandoll wrote:Mirage I understand your sarcasm... indulge in it myself when some of what we read reaches a point where it beggars belief.

  Just wanted to clarify the intent of this woman who only seemed to want to take the time to drive to a cashpoint[ not sure how far away] and get a meal.

 The Mcs  friend might argue that she was too far away and drunk to be of any use in an emergency.

 Even too drunk if at home to be any use.

 However we do not know that she was prone to this behaviour, whereas the Mcs admit to repeatedly being at a location from which they could neither see nor hear their children.

 So, drunk or sober, any time between checks a disaster could have happened, and it did.

 Good on that lawyer.

With the amount the McCanns and friends drunk that fateful evening their bloodlevel might well have been at the same level.

The only difference in these 2 cases is that Madeleine disappeared, while the boy was safe and sound asleep where she left him.

Just a thought, do we all believe this story??? Or is it all part of the game to turn up the heat? The timing of this is just a little too coincidental for me. The lady accused was "unnamed", no comment from the lawyer, Mr Morgan. The only (furious) comments we do have are from 'friends' of the McCann's.

Or maybe I'm just very cynical.

I don't know where the father of this autistic boy was at the time mum decided to drive to a cash point while under the influence, but I do know that bringing up a child on the autistic spectrum is a massive strain that proves too much for many relationships, resulting in the mums of many autistic kids having to shoulder the burden of parenthood on their own. All children can be hard work, but autistic ones are very hard work at times. I make no excuses for this woman - drinking and driving is bad enough; drinking, driving and neglecting a child is appalling.

However the McCann friend who claimed the comparison was "insensitive and plain wrong" is probably correct, in my view - just not in the way he meant. Whatever this drink-driving mum's personal circumstances, we do know that Kate and Gerry's decision to leave their children unattended was - according to them - entirely voluntary, repeated over several nights and continued even after one of the children had asked her parents where they were on the previous evening. We also know that they had the choice of leaving their children at the creche or hiring a babysitter if they wanted to leave their holiday home knowing their children were being cared for.

What's disgraceful is that the McCanns have been held up as examples of fine, upstanding citizens and one of them has even been allowed to become an "ambassador" for a charity, while the other parent  was dragged through court, despite no harm having come to her child (albeit no thanks to her). It's the hypocrisy that really stinks.

Once again, the McCanns show their true colours. Only narcissists would be "furious".

Taken at face value that they left their children alone for several nights while out eating and drinking, surely the correct response would be to feel "saddened" that this mother has not learnt from the McCanns' error and "relief" that in this case the child was still there and unharmed.

Poe wrote:Once again, the McCanns show their true colours. Only narcissists would be "furious".

Taken at face value that they left their children alone for several nights while out eating and drinking, surely the correct response would be to feel "saddened" that this mother has not learnt from the McCanns' error and "relief" that in this case the child was still there and unharmed.

Yes Poe exactly that.

Mirage wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:

russiandoll wrote:quote mirage

  It's true the woman left a vulnerable child, went out, had a fair bit to drink and experienced a helluva car crash.

 I did not read it that way, more that she was over the limit when she drove to the cashpoint, not that she was out for the time it would take her to get over the limit...I drew the inference that she had been drinking at home. Perhaps you did also, what you wrote however suggests that she got drunk after leaving the house.

 Only mentioning this because it has a bearing on how long she intended to leave the children alone, am not excusing her drink-driving or irresponsibility at all.

 
Yes, my understanding was that she was intending to get a takeaway, not that she had left her son all evening, hence the lawyers comment that the McCanns had left their children for a longer time.

I was being a bit sarcastic. It was a reference to KM - car crash as in "it's a disaster". I had thought the woman in the case had pranged her car, though. Happy to be corrected.

You are correct Mirage that the woman did drive into another car, she had been drinking at home, was over the limit, decided to get a takeaway meal, drove to the cash point to get some money and then had a car accident. That's how the police discovered she had left her son alone.

Poe wrote:Once again, the McCanns show their true colours. Only narcissists would be "furious".

Taken at face value that they left their children alone for several nights while out eating and drinking, surely the correct response would be to feel "saddened" that this mother has not learnt from the McCanns' error and "relief" that in this case the child was still there and unharmed.

Well said Poe     

The Mail is running the story now

First two comments -

'Whatever is said - they did leave three very young children alone in a hotel room while they went out to eat and drink - not responsible behaviour for people in their position'.





'How dare he compare someone who goes out and leaves their child alone to someone who goes out and leaves their child alone......... hang on, actually, there is a similarity. But woe betide anyone who dares stand up and speak out'.


Kate and Gerry are going to be furious!!

COMPARISON

1) Had a few drinks and then went out for something to eat
2) Had a few drinks and then went out for something to eat

1) Left 5 year old boy alone sleeping on the sofa
2) Left 3 year old girl and twins asleep in the apartment

1) Drove round to the cash point while over the drink drive limit
2) Did not drive while under the influence of alcohol

1) Went out of sight of home
2) Went out of sight of the apartment

1) Intended to stay out long enough to go to the cashpoint and get a takeaway (then had a car accident)
2) Intended to stay out for the evening (witnesses reported a child crying for over an hour and a quarter until 11.45 pm one night)

1) Not known if she had ever done this before
2) Went out every night of the holiday

1) Told the lady whose car she hit that it was her 'f***ing fault'
2) Said the police were 'f***ing tossers

1) Accepts responsibility for what had happened (according to lawyer)
2) Do not accept responsibility for what happened

1) Feels remorse for what happened (according to her lawyer)
2) Will be furious at the 'outrageous' comparison (according to a friend)

Popcorn wrote:
What's disgraceful is that the McCanns have been held up as examples of fine, upstanding citizens and one of them has even been allowed to become an "ambassador" for a charity, while the other parent  was dragged through court, despite no harm having come to her child (albeit no thanks to her). It's the hypocrisy that really stinks.

I agree, the hypocrisy in this case is absolutely staggering. In following story (from 2011) a healthcare worker received a police caution for child cruelty because she left her 14 year old son to babysit her 3 year old, for 30 minutes, to go shopping. As a consequence she was suspended from her job & barred from working with children for 10 years.

EXPRESS 2011
Police caution mum for leaving son, 14, to mind three-year-old brother
A MOTHER who left her son of 14 to mind his three-year-old brother while she went to the shops was given a police caution for “cruelty” and was suspended from work.

Police cautioned a mum for leaving her teenage son in charge of his three year old sibling

Last night the case ignited a debate over when it is acceptable for parents to briefly leave older siblings home alone as carers. Police found that the un-named healthcare assistant left the brothers alone together for just 30 minutes. Although there was no “incident” and they were not believed to be in danger, the mother was cautioned by officers for “committing an act of cruelty on a child or young person.”
She has also remained suspended from her job in the Thames Valley since September 2009 because the caution is revealed under Criminal Records Bureau checks.

The woman, in her mid-40s, who is fighting for a law change and reinstatement, claims the system makes her “unemployable”. As well as being unable to pass a CRB check, the caution automatically bars her from working with children for 10 years. This was despite her being taken off the barred list by the Independent Safeguarding Authority after a year-long social services probe produced a “glowing” report which confirmed her children were healthy and well looked after.

UK law fails to spell out when teenagers can look after their younger brothers and sisters but police can prosecute parents if they feel their actions put children at risk. The NSPCC advises that no child under 14 should be left home alone and no child under 16 should care for someone younger than themselves. Siobhan Freegard, co-founder of Netmums and a mother-of-three, said: “Parents are left to rely on their own judgment but sometimes they will make the wrong call.” Consultant psychologist David Spellman, who works with children, said: “Fourteen-year-olds are very different from one another. Kids who probably shouldn’t be left alone are, but that doesn’t necessarily constitute neglect.” The crime reduction charity NACRO said that it was “outrageous” the healthcare assistant remained unable to work.

Spokesman Tim Linehan said: “It demonstrates the double jeopardy of the system where someone has been removed from the barred list but a caution continues to come up on a CRB check and they risk losing a job as a result.“One of the problems with cautions is that people don’t realise they are recorded as an offence and they go on a person’s record, which can be discovered when a CRB check is carried out.
“An employer who sees that someone has a caution may then exclude them from employment.” In November two nurses who were barred from working with youngsters for leaving their own children unattended, had the bans overturned. One had been barred for leaving an 11-year-old at home while she went to the shops. The other, a male nurse, was cautioned after his wife briefly left their children alone without his knowledge. Both are now suing the Government for damages. A source close to the healthcare assistant, who is married, said: “She feels she is dedicated to her family but because of this the system has effectively ended her career and made her unemployable.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/227553/Police-caution-mum-for-leaving-son-14-to-mind-three-year-old-brother

Tasprin, well now they have a new precedent to argue. It now seems as though the nurse who left her 3 year old with her 14 year old (and what's wrong with that? Plenty of 14 year olds are sensible enough to look after a child for 30 mins, although you would consider the circumstances carefully) would actually be in a better position if she had left the 3 year old alone entirely, or with younger siblings.

And with regard to the other nurse, if I hadn't left my 11 year olds in the house occasionally (daytime) to nip to the shops, I would have had a fight on my hands to persuade them to come with me.

COMPARSION.

1) Welsh lady LOCKED all windows and doors to her house, leaving ONE child asleep, when she went 'out' of sight.

2) McCanns diliberately, consciously, left ALL doors to their apartment UNLOCKED, leaving THREE babies alone, when they went 'out' of sight.

jeanmonroe wrote:COMPARSION.

1) Welsh lady LOCKED all windows and doors to her house, leaving ONE child asleep, when she went 'out' of sight.

2) McCanns diliberately, consciously, left ALL doors to their apartment UNLOCKED, leaving THREE babies alone, when they went 'out' of sight.

Not all doors, the patio was left unlocked.