Crosswords1 min ago
mccanns being sued?
has anyone else read about a lawyer sueing the mccanns for child neglect? i cant seem to find a link now
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gina32. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What an odd thing to do.
He obviously considers himself as a moral crusader.
If he were to be sucessful in this mad enterprise under Section 1 CA 1933
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or alternatively, ... or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months.
A fine of �100 even surely in 1933 was a paltry sum for being convicted of cruelty
I wonder why he isn't trying to use more modern legislation!
He obviously considers himself as a moral crusader.
If he were to be sucessful in this mad enterprise under Section 1 CA 1933
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or alternatively, ... or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months.
A fine of �100 even surely in 1933 was a paltry sum for being convicted of cruelty
I wonder why he isn't trying to use more modern legislation!
Just read the article, does anyone find it strange (perhaps its just me) that Clarence Mitchell says that the McCanns....... very much regret that they were not with Madeline when she was taken.....
I find this an odd turn of phrase, its like saying 'I regret I didn't say see my grandmother before she died' or something similar, to me it implies that it would have happened if they had been there, or am I just reading it wrong?
I find this an odd turn of phrase, its like saying 'I regret I didn't say see my grandmother before she died' or something similar, to me it implies that it would have happened if they had been there, or am I just reading it wrong?
An odd thing to do, but I can actually understand it!
I don't think he is after punishment for the McCanns Ruby, I think he just wants more emphasis brought upon their neglect of the children. They have had enough punishment.
If they were poorer people they couldn't have afforded to do what they are doing and get a publicity spokesman etc. I am willing to bet that a poor family in different circumstances would have had Social Services intervention by now. e.g. if they had been down the local pub every evening, popping back every so often to check on their babies.
I don't think he is after punishment for the McCanns Ruby, I think he just wants more emphasis brought upon their neglect of the children. They have had enough punishment.
If they were poorer people they couldn't have afforded to do what they are doing and get a publicity spokesman etc. I am willing to bet that a poor family in different circumstances would have had Social Services intervention by now. e.g. if they had been down the local pub every evening, popping back every so often to check on their babies.
What a nasty, unpleasant, self-righteous, obnoxious person this lawyer must be. The McCanns made a serious error of judgement, yes, but surely what they are going through is punishment enough? To want to put them through the courts for child neglect is the act of someone with no humanity in them at all.
Anyway, I've never seen mentioned anywhere any condemnation of the McCanns friends who also left their children at the same time, but were lucky in that their children were not the ones targeted by the kidnapper(s). It's so easy to be self-righteous with hindsight. I'm horrified by the lack of feeling and arrogant moral superiority shown by some people commenting on this matter.
Anyway, I've never seen mentioned anywhere any condemnation of the McCanns friends who also left their children at the same time, but were lucky in that their children were not the ones targeted by the kidnapper(s). It's so easy to be self-righteous with hindsight. I'm horrified by the lack of feeling and arrogant moral superiority shown by some people commenting on this matter.
"why can they just tell the truth ie.....we really regret leaving our children unattended"
"They have never once say they were wrong to have left their children"
Utter rubbish. They've spoken on many occasions about their guilt for leaving the children alone.
This is from three weeks after Madeline's disappearence:
"No-one will ever feel as guilty as we do over the fact that we weren't with Madeleine at the time when she was abducted. Whether we were in the bedroom next door we would still feel as guilty." Gerry McCann.
"They have never once say they were wrong to have left their children"
Utter rubbish. They've spoken on many occasions about their guilt for leaving the children alone.
This is from three weeks after Madeline's disappearence:
"No-one will ever feel as guilty as we do over the fact that we weren't with Madeleine at the time when she was abducted. Whether we were in the bedroom next door we would still feel as guilty." Gerry McCann.
susie spider. I think we should be entitled to our views on leaving babies alone without being accused of 'arrogant moral superiority'. It was not in my view a error in judgement. How could any normal parent judge that is would be OK to leave their babies in an unlocked apartment
which was not visible to them and about 100 yds away from where they were eating.
I say again if it had happened in the UK and babies had been left in an unlocked house while their parents were 'down the local pub' and they and others checked on them from time to time, then there would definitely have been intervention from Social Services.
If that lawyer feels deeply about it and feels, as we on this thread do, that there actions in leaving these children have been 'brushed under the carpet', and if he can afford to take this up, then good on him. I don't think it is from a vindictive point of view that he has done it.
I emphasise again that I think the McCanns have been punished enough - they have lost their daughter. But it can't be seen to be right to neglect children like they have done. They have caused all this adverse publicity themselves - they have to live with the consequences.
which was not visible to them and about 100 yds away from where they were eating.
I say again if it had happened in the UK and babies had been left in an unlocked house while their parents were 'down the local pub' and they and others checked on them from time to time, then there would definitely have been intervention from Social Services.
If that lawyer feels deeply about it and feels, as we on this thread do, that there actions in leaving these children have been 'brushed under the carpet', and if he can afford to take this up, then good on him. I don't think it is from a vindictive point of view that he has done it.
I emphasise again that I think the McCanns have been punished enough - they have lost their daughter. But it can't be seen to be right to neglect children like they have done. They have caused all this adverse publicity themselves - they have to live with the consequences.
There was quite a bit about this on the Daily Express forum yesterday. In fact I think the solicitor may even be a contributor on there but I'm not certain.
It suggests that one of the main aims of this action was to get the McCanns in court so as the type of questions, they had refused to answer for the Portuguese police, could be put to them.
Ref. Clarence Mitchell saying it's ok to leave toddlers home alone, he apparently said that thusands of British families do it. His response to the suggestion of this private summons was that the Mccanns had not broken any law in this country or any other.
It suggests that one of the main aims of this action was to get the McCanns in court so as the type of questions, they had refused to answer for the Portuguese police, could be put to them.
Ref. Clarence Mitchell saying it's ok to leave toddlers home alone, he apparently said that thusands of British families do it. His response to the suggestion of this private summons was that the Mccanns had not broken any law in this country or any other.
Sorry Waldo. I can't agree. They have never admitted to being 'wrong'. To admit to feeling guilty is totally different. I would feel guilty if my child was abducted from upstairs whilst I was downstairs. Every parent would. You would be feeling guilty that you perhaps should have heard something, that perhaps your child called out and you were in the kitchen where you couldn't hear them, etc. etc. It wouldn't mean that you had actually done 'wrong'.
I feel you are missing my point WaldoMcfroog, the statement of not being there when she was abducted does not make sense to me. The fact is that I know, you know and they know that they 'regret' (and I am sure that term can never be strong enough to express what they feel) leaving their children unattended, so why not just say it and be honest.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.