If it was at home I would agree with you thats fine (if the parents are downstairs/in the garden etc), but it was on holiday in an unfamilliar place, I think one parent at least should have stayed with the kids. Maybe they had been left alone before and 'nothing' happened so that made them think it would be OK
And most kids wouldn't have to navigate their way through a road, car park, past a swimming pool etc if their parents were in the garden.
So you believe that the media should be biased against any parents in a similar position? I would hope they would be sympathetic to anyone losing a child.
Presumably you approve of the regular policy of the British police to arrest any parents of a child who has died and hold them in custody for a day or so?
The media should able to report the whole story, not one side of it. As long as what is reported is truthful and accurate, there should be no issue with it, even if the facts being reported don't dovetail with the 'official' version of events.
The reason the British Police (and, indeed, other police forces around the world) initially focus on the parents of a child (note, I said 'focus', not 'arrest' as a person would only be arrested if the police felt that there were grounds to do so) is because those close to the child need to be checked out before the investigation is widened. Statistics show that the majority of crimes against children are committed by a parent, guardian or someone the child knows. Therefore it would be madness not to check out those close to the child at the start of the investigation in order to eliminate them.
I hope that this documentary is fair and impartial, otherwise it's a pointless excercise. I also agree with the poster who mentioned other missing children. It would be good to have a documentary focussing on some of them.
Incidentally, I think the regions which aren't getting the documentary tonight are getting it on Monday (30th April). I'll be watching tonight live on iplayer (if it will let me), as I'm in one of the regions where it isn't being aired tonight.
Which, when you think about it, is just completely odd. Unless you know the family, why do people get so upset about it, and things like this?
I think part of it is that you have extremes of opinion on both sides. Supporters of the parents will often claim they "made a mistake" and detractors will claim that it was "wilful neglect". Both sets of opinions tend to so the arguments are usually not far behind.
DS has a duty protect itself from legal action like any other large media outlet so they have to be vigilant. There's also a difference between discussing court cases and flat out libelling someone. As I said, it's largely down to the polarizing extremes of opinion on both sides that usually causes the threads to be binned.
But we'll see what happens after the program airs. I wouldn't be surprised if this thread doesn't see out the week though.
Parents have been leaving children alone whilst nearby for years. According to the above they should not be left alone upstairs in a bedroom whilst the parents are downstairs or in the garden.
I can just never understand how people can make terrible accusations against the parents without knowing them and just on the evidence of a couple of newspapers that ran a campaign against them because they had chosen to speak to another newspaper.
I have seen where the three children were left and I am interested to know if the parents felt it safe enough did they leave their credit cards on the table ?
It was not in any way comparable to a garden , unless you garden has a path , road and a pool between you and the children .Plus full acess from a public road on both sides of the apartment .
Just seen Insp Andy Redwood on ITV news saying categorically that it was abduction by a stranger.
How come NOBODY, in 5 years, has produced one TINY piece of evidence of abduction, let alone by a stranger?
Isn't police work all about EVIDENCE - not assumption? Even the 'assumption' in this case is highly unlikely: only a 3 minute opportunity (by the McCann's own admission), a highly dubious (and ever changing) sighting by Tanner, and absolutely no verifiable reports of an offender or a victim - in 5 years. And NO repeat offence ('assuming' it was a paedo ring...)
It will be really interesting if the programme tonight shows exactly why Redwood has come to this conclusion!
That's my feeling too, that someone noticed a pattern of the children being left and so took advantage. Also, we all know they left the children alone, so there's no point in keep going over that again and again. It's done now and so we should be concentrating on trying to find the missing child.
I thought Leonor Cipriano was still in jail for Joanna's murder? (I presume this is the case you're referring to). If not, do you have a link to where she was released, as I haven't seen it?
Perhaps she is, I just remember a case being described where the mother was convicted under very doubtful circumstances. I obviously wrongly presumed she would be released on appeal.
That's my feeling too, that someone noticed a pattern of the children being left and so took advantage. Also, we all know they left the children alone, so there's no point in keep going over that again and again. It's done now and so we should be concentrating on trying to find the missing child.
I think she was abducted - probably easy to do when the kids were left alone every night for hours on end, so it would be easy to watch the pattern of the times they were left as the week went on, and took her just before they were planning to leave knowing they'd have the time to do it - and something nasty done to her then she was killed, probably within hours, but her body has never been found. Probably dropped in the Ocean or something.
Kids abducted and killed in thei country are also usually killed within hours of being taken, but their bodies usually turn up eventually. And most people - specially the police, cos I've heard them say it - believe this is what usually happens, that they're killed within hours. Because it happens it abroad, for some reason people want to believe they're alive somewhere just cos the body isn't found.
Bit like Ben Needham years ago. He was probably killed soon after being taken but as his body has never been found, his poor mother wants to believe he's still alive somewhere.
I think whoever took Madeleine and killed her, if he ever has any piece of compassion in him, will tell her parents where she is.
If it was at home I would agree with you thats fine (if the parents are downstairs/in the garden etc), but it was on holiday in an unfamilliar place, I think one parent at least should have stayed with the kids. Maybe they had been left alone before and 'nothing' happened so that made them think it would be OK
I agree with you, nobody would do it now, after the Madeleine McCann case. But before that it was not uncommon for parents staying in a complex to leave their children unattended, popping back every now and again to check on them.
My wife and I saw it dozens of times in the 80's and 90's, we even did it ourselves in a hotel in Majorca back in the 70's.
Our two boys were older than Maddie and her siblings, and the hotel had a listening service, but I'm not sure what use that would have been in an emergency. Yes, we should have hired a babysitter, but when we were only going to be a stones throw away, and checking back at regular intervals, it seemed unnecessary.
I do think there are a lot of "holier than thou" people who appear in any thread concerning the McCanns. People did think that rooms in these type of holiday complexes were safe places to leave their children, it was almost one of the selling points for families.
The media should able to report the whole story, not one side of it. As long as what is reported is truthful and accurate, there should be no issue with it, even if the facts being reported don't dovetail with the 'official' version of events.
The reason the British Police (and, indeed, other police forces around the world) initially focus on the parents of a child (note, I said 'focus', not 'arrest' as a person would only be arrested if the police felt that there were grounds to do so) is because those close to the child need to be checked out before the investigation is widened. Statistics show that the majority of crimes against children are committed by a parent, guardian or someone the child knows. Therefore it would be madness not to check out those close to the child at the start of the investigation in order to eliminate them.
I hope that this documentary is fair and impartial, otherwise it's a pointless excercise. I also agree with the poster who mentioned other missing children. It would be good to have a documentary focussing on some of them.
Incidentally, I think the regions which aren't getting the documentary tonight are getting it on Monday (30th April). I'll be watching tonight live on iplayer (if it will let me), as I'm in one of the regions where it isn't being aired tonight.
Relatives and friends have always been the initial suspect in any crime which is why the home is usually searched very early in any missing person (child or not). But this can be done discretely and always was in the past. Now it appears to be routine to arrest them, the police see arresting someone as just a formality and then will de-arrest them later but it must be a terrible moment for someone who has just lost a child and who needs support. Normally they are not going anywhere and a "liaison officer" can be left with them.
I think theres something weird about the whole situation theres too many unanswered questions and I doubt very much any of them will be answered tonight. I looked into it online a while back and was very surprised to read that apparently one of their friends saw the man that kidnapped madeleine I'd hope that if I was out with my mates and one of them noticed some stranger walking past with my child they'd do something about it not just ignore it. the other thing that I don't get is why did the parents not want to answer alot of the questions from the police? surely you'd want to do everything you could to help find your child.
Programme change in some regions tonight at 1930 with a BBC1 Panorama special on developments in the search for Madeleine McCann almost five years after she disappeared.Includes an interview with the chief investigator on possible new clues.
Relatives and friends have always been the initial suspect in any crime which is why the home is usually searched very early in any missing person (child or not). But this can be done discretely and always was in the past. Now it appears to be routine to arrest them, the police see arresting someone as just a formality and then will de-arrest them later but it must be a terrible moment for someone who has just lost a child and who needs support. Normally they are not going anywhere and a "liaison officer" can be left with them.
Unfortunately, those close to the child have to be investigated first because more often than not, one or more of these people is involved in the child's disappearance. The police aren't doing it to be nasty to the parents. Just to ensure that they have been investigated thoroughly and ruled out.
I agree with you, nobody would do it now, after the Madeleine McCann case. But before that it was not uncommon for parents staying in a complex to leave their children unattended, popping back every now and again to check on them.
My wife and I saw it dozens of times in the 80's and 90's, we even did it ourselves in a hotel in Majorca back in the 70's.
Our two boys were older than Maddie and her siblings, and the hotel had a listening service, but I'm not sure what use that would have been in an emergency. Yes, we should have hired a babysitter, but when we were only going to be a stones throw away, and checking back at regular intervals, it seemed unnecessary.
I do think there are a lot of "holier than thou" people who appear in any thread concerning the McCanns. People did think that rooms in these type of holiday complexes were safe places to leave their children, it was almost one of the selling points for families.
You're right, it was a very family/child friendly resort the McCanns went to.
I have to wonder what will happen in 2 years time when the 7 year time period is up for being declared legally dead.
I'm familiar with the general principle of being declared legally dead if there is no evidence to suggest that the person is alive but is it an automatic thing or do family members have to petition the court for it to happen ?
If it's automatic, would the McCanns contest it legally ?
I suspect they would, of course, but since it's part of common law, I can't see how they could ever be able to contest it or overturn it if it's an automatic thing.
Perhaps she is, I just remember a case being described where the mother was convicted under very doubtful circumstances. I obviously wrongly presumed she would be released on appeal.
I don't think there was ever any doubt about her conviction. What was in question was how she was treated in custody. Amaral was taken to court, because police working for him beat her. He was not there, nor was he involved. Everything else is just spin, but the spin obviously worked, if people ended up believing that the evil Cipriano was innocent.
I have to wonder what will happen in 2 years time when the 7 year time period is up for being declared legally dead.
I'm familiar with the general principle of being declared legally dead if there is no evidence to suggest that the person is alive but is it an automatic thing or do family members have to petition the court for it to happen ?
If it's automatic, would the McCanns contest it legally ?
I suspect they would, of course, but since it's part of common law, I can't see how they could ever be able to contest it or overturn it if it's an automatic thing.
I think that the family have to request it, and it is more for things like insurance/wills/inheritence issues rather than anything else.
Lord Lucan, for instance, has been delcared dead in law and so his son is free to use the title.
Certainly, I've never read that Ben Needham or any other child (thinking along the lines of Ginette Tate) have been legally declared dead - even if the 7 years didn't start until after their 21st birthday.
Im getting a bit sick of hearing this in the news. Most people presume the mother was the one that did it but because their doctors they got away with it.
You're right, it was a very family/child friendly resort the McCanns went to.
But it wasn't a complex in the sense that it was fully enclosed with only staff and other holiday makers. The apartment was on a public road which had to be walked to get to the bar.
And, I take family/child friendly to mean they would have many activities/eateries etc. for children and child care available not somewhere where you can absolve your parental duty of care.
But it wasn't a complex in the sense that it was fully enclosed with only staff and other holiday makers. The apartment was on a public road which had to be walked to get to the bar.
And, I take family/child friendly to mean they would have many activities/eateries etc. for children and child care available not somewhere where you can absolve your parental duty of care.
Are you sure..I thought it was an internal road on the complex ? The restaurant was really only a stone's throw away from the apartment "as the crow flies", but I believe the swimming pool was in between ?
There was babysitting available, but I still think more people than care to admit it would have left their kids for a short while if they were having a meal in a restaurant within the complex, and within sight of their apartment.
I mean, how many people would hire a babysitter if they were just having a meal in the dining room of a hotel, leaving their children upstairs, tucked up in bed ?
I think theres something weird about the whole situation theres too many unanswered questions and I doubt very much any of them will be answered tonight. I looked into it online a while back and was very surprised to read that apparently one of their friends saw the man that kidnapped madeleine I'd hope that if I was out with my mates and one of them noticed some stranger walking past with my child they'd do something about it not just ignore it. the other thing that I don't get is why did the parents not want to answer alot of the questions from the police? surely you'd want to do everything you could to help find your child.
From a distance, Kate's friend saw a man carrying a small girl. She didn't realise there and then that it was probably Maddy.
Are you sure..I thought it was an internal road on the complex ? The restaurant was really only a stone's throw away from the apartment "as the crow flies", but I believe the swimming pool was in between ?
There was babysitting available, but I still think more people than care to admit it would have left their kids for a short while if they were having a meal in a restaurant within the complex, and within sight of their apartment.
I mean, how many people would hire a babysitter if they were just having a meal in the dining room of a hotel, leaving their children upstairs, tucked up in bed ?
Nope- the apartment stood on a public road, seperate from the reception etc. So access to the tapas was out the apartment onto road, along road, then into entrance beside pool etc
Comments
And most kids wouldn't have to navigate their way through a road, car park, past a swimming pool etc if their parents were in the garden.
The media should able to report the whole story, not one side of it. As long as what is reported is truthful and accurate, there should be no issue with it, even if the facts being reported don't dovetail with the 'official' version of events.
The reason the British Police (and, indeed, other police forces around the world) initially focus on the parents of a child (note, I said 'focus', not 'arrest' as a person would only be arrested if the police felt that there were grounds to do so) is because those close to the child need to be checked out before the investigation is widened. Statistics show that the majority of crimes against children are committed by a parent, guardian or someone the child knows. Therefore it would be madness not to check out those close to the child at the start of the investigation in order to eliminate them.
I hope that this documentary is fair and impartial, otherwise it's a pointless excercise. I also agree with the poster who mentioned other missing children. It would be good to have a documentary focussing on some of them.
Incidentally, I think the regions which aren't getting the documentary tonight are getting it on Monday (30th April). I'll be watching tonight live on iplayer (if it will let me), as I'm in one of the regions where it isn't being aired tonight.
I think part of it is that you have extremes of opinion on both sides. Supporters of the parents will often claim they "made a mistake" and detractors will claim that it was "wilful neglect". Both sets of opinions tend to so the arguments are usually not far behind.
DS has a duty protect itself from legal action like any other large media outlet so they have to be vigilant. There's also a difference between discussing court cases and flat out libelling someone. As I said, it's largely down to the polarizing extremes of opinion on both sides that usually causes the threads to be binned.
But we'll see what happens after the program airs. I wouldn't be surprised if this thread doesn't see out the week though.
I doubt it'll last much more than 3 hours after the programme finishes tonight
I have seen where the three children were left and I am interested to know if the parents felt it safe enough did they leave their credit cards on the table ?
It was not in any way comparable to a garden , unless you garden has a path , road and a pool between you and the children .Plus full acess from a public road on both sides of the apartment .
That's my feeling too, that someone noticed a pattern of the children being left and so took advantage. Also, we all know they left the children alone, so there's no point in keep going over that again and again. It's done now and so we should be concentrating on trying to find the missing child.
Perhaps she is, I just remember a case being described where the mother was convicted under very doubtful circumstances. I obviously wrongly presumed she would be released on appeal.
I think she was abducted - probably easy to do when the kids were left alone every night for hours on end, so it would be easy to watch the pattern of the times they were left as the week went on, and took her just before they were planning to leave knowing they'd have the time to do it - and something nasty done to her then she was killed, probably within hours, but her body has never been found. Probably dropped in the Ocean or something.
Kids abducted and killed in thei country are also usually killed within hours of being taken, but their bodies usually turn up eventually. And most people - specially the police, cos I've heard them say it - believe this is what usually happens, that they're killed within hours. Because it happens it abroad, for some reason people want to believe they're alive somewhere just cos the body isn't found.
Bit like Ben Needham years ago. He was probably killed soon after being taken but as his body has never been found, his poor mother wants to believe he's still alive somewhere.
I think whoever took Madeleine and killed her, if he ever has any piece of compassion in him, will tell her parents where she is.
I agree with you, nobody would do it now, after the Madeleine McCann case. But before that it was not uncommon for parents staying in a complex to leave their children unattended, popping back every now and again to check on them.
My wife and I saw it dozens of times in the 80's and 90's, we even did it ourselves in a hotel in Majorca back in the 70's.
Our two boys were older than Maddie and her siblings, and the hotel had a listening service, but I'm not sure what use that would have been in an emergency. Yes, we should have hired a babysitter, but when we were only going to be a stones throw away, and checking back at regular intervals, it seemed unnecessary.
I do think there are a lot of "holier than thou" people who appear in any thread concerning the McCanns. People did think that rooms in these type of holiday complexes were safe places to leave their children, it was almost one of the selling points for families.
Relatives and friends have always been the initial suspect in any crime which is why the home is usually searched very early in any missing person (child or not). But this can be done discretely and always was in the past. Now it appears to be routine to arrest them, the police see arresting someone as just a formality and then will de-arrest them later but it must be a terrible moment for someone who has just lost a child and who needs support. Normally they are not going anywhere and a "liaison officer" can be left with them.
Does anyone know if its showing in London?
My tv planner isnt showing any Panorama tonight
Unfortunately, those close to the child have to be investigated first because more often than not, one or more of these people is involved in the child's disappearance. The police aren't doing it to be nasty to the parents. Just to ensure that they have been investigated thoroughly and ruled out.
I'm in London and my EPG is showing it at 7.30pm tonight on BBC1.
You're right, it was a very family/child friendly resort the McCanns went to.
Oh ok...I've got Rip Off Britain on mine :mad:
Will tune in anyhow just to make sure...
I'm familiar with the general principle of being declared legally dead if there is no evidence to suggest that the person is alive but is it an automatic thing or do family members have to petition the court for it to happen ?
If it's automatic, would the McCanns contest it legally ?
I suspect they would, of course, but since it's part of common law, I can't see how they could ever be able to contest it or overturn it if it's an automatic thing.
I don't think there was ever any doubt about her conviction. What was in question was how she was treated in custody. Amaral was taken to court, because police working for him beat her. He was not there, nor was he involved. Everything else is just spin, but the spin obviously worked, if people ended up believing that the evil Cipriano was innocent.
I think that the family have to request it, and it is more for things like insurance/wills/inheritence issues rather than anything else.
Lord Lucan, for instance, has been delcared dead in law and so his son is free to use the title.
Certainly, I've never read that Ben Needham or any other child (thinking along the lines of Ginette Tate) have been legally declared dead - even if the 7 years didn't start until after their 21st birthday.
But it wasn't a complex in the sense that it was fully enclosed with only staff and other holiday makers. The apartment was on a public road which had to be walked to get to the bar.
And, I take family/child friendly to mean they would have many activities/eateries etc. for children and child care available not somewhere where you can absolve your parental duty of care.
Are you sure..I thought it was an internal road on the complex ? The restaurant was really only a stone's throw away from the apartment "as the crow flies", but I believe the swimming pool was in between ?
There was babysitting available, but I still think more people than care to admit it would have left their kids for a short while if they were having a meal in a restaurant within the complex, and within sight of their apartment.
I mean, how many people would hire a babysitter if they were just having a meal in the dining room of a hotel, leaving their children upstairs, tucked up in bed ?
From a distance, Kate's friend saw a man carrying a small girl. She didn't realise there and then that it was probably Maddy.
Nope- the apartment stood on a public road, seperate from the reception etc. So access to the tapas was out the apartment onto road, along road, then into entrance beside pool etc