McCanns - man who accused them gets jail sentence
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Of course it often is, but they take a view on whether or not they can win. I have acted for a couple of large media organisations facing libel claims, and they do not always roll over. Sometime they take the view that the story is an important one, and they stand behind their journalists. Some media organisations actually have principles, amazing as that may seem (tabloids, hardly ever). In my youth I was the Friday/Saturday night on-call lawyer for a Sunday paper, and I recall from many vigorous midnight debates in the newsroom that the editors were often courageous and principled in their decisions to publish or not publish.
it's about selling newspapers. as you say the risk is evaluated against the reward, if it's a one off scoop they may take the plunge, this McCann thing has rumbled on for so long people have lost interest, unless something ground-breaking and concrete comes along then they will roll over.doubt anything ground-breaking and concrete will be uncovered legitimately, so it'll just jog along on internet forums forever more, whilst the McCann legal team sweep up anyone small enough who dares to challenge.
Gene Vincent said:
TheSnitch said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am very interested in the subjects of risk and of how events happen. This is partly because of my job, but mainly because of an interest in history. I also fly and do ski mountaineering as hobbies, and they are all about constant risk evaluation and the application of informed buy sometimes rapid judgment to potentially lethal situations. I wish that I had the time and money to do scuba diving properly, as that's a game that places you in the constant immediate presence of death, and is very fascinating as a result. Snitch, please think over GV's points, and maybe do some reading on the subject. There is no Book of Rules that covers every situation.
GV has yet to make any points worth considering, so you can drop your tag team approach.It's quite clear that you are aware that what you did in leaving your child alone placed her at risk. For all your protestations, you have still yet to explain why your dinner was more important than your child's safety.
The mounting hysteria in your posts ("you have still yet to explain why your dinner was more important than your child's safety.") are testament to just how deep risk aversion has penetrated your psyche.
It's advice you chose to ignore when you left your baby home alone - and that's entirely up to you, as it was up to the McCanns when they did it - but don't be too surprised if others find your behaviour, and your defence of it, unacceptable. As you claim to be legally qualified, it might be worth you remembering that there is no legal age limit for leaving a child alone, but it's an offence to do so if it places them at risk*
Which raises the interesting question - if a client paid you for legal advice on their position in law if they wanted to leave a baby or young child home alone, what would you advise them?
- Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (England and Wales), Children
(Northern Ireland) 1968.
Mermaid said:
....
Some comments are made in jest (check the Oscar/Dewani./Pope/Harry thread), not malice (you said you had not read the whole McCann thread). It's about context too. But what would the McCanns make of the following comment if they did not like you & you had money.?
"Yesterday (20:09)
GV, Those murdering bds! Offing their kid and fibbing about it I can forgive. Hey, we've all done it; but no fker touches my shed"
...
You have answered your own question, oh rare aquatic hybrid being, as context is everything, some words obviously mean the exact opposite of their literal meaning*, and jokes and satire are rarely actionable. Some comments are made in jest (check the Oscar/Dewani./Pope/Harry thread), not malice (you said you had not read the whole McCann thread). It's about context too. But what would the McCanns make of the following comment if they did not like you & you had money.?
"Yesterday (20:09)
GV, Those murdering bds! Offing their kid and fibbing about it I can forgive. Hey, we've all done it; but no fker touches my shed"
...
* See an as example the scene in 'Presumed Innocent' in which the accused, when accused of killing his wife, says to the DA: 'yeah, I did'. As the trial Judge has to explain wearily to the DA, the accused was plainly and obviously saying 'no, I didn't'. The Judge, a cool black dude, explains that, where he comes from, the accused would have said 'your momma'.
TheSnitch said:
Gene Vincent said:
TheSnitch said:
Breadvan72 said:
I am very interested in the subjects of risk and of how events happen. This is partly because of my job, but mainly because of an interest in history. I also fly and do ski mountaineering as hobbies, and they are all about constant risk evaluation and the application of informed buy sometimes rapid judgment to potentially lethal situations. I wish that I had the time and money to do scuba diving properly, as that's a game that places you in the constant immediate presence of death, and is very fascinating as a result. Snitch, please think over GV's points, and maybe do some reading on the subject. There is no Book of Rules that covers every situation.
GV has yet to make any points worth considering, so you can drop your tag team approach.It's quite clear that you are aware that what you did in leaving your child alone placed her at risk. For all your protestations, you have still yet to explain why your dinner was more important than your child's safety.
The mounting hysteria in your posts ("you have still yet to explain why your dinner was more important than your child's safety.") are testament to just how deep risk aversion has penetrated your psyche.
It's advice you chose to ignore when you left your baby home alone - and that's entirely up to you, as it was up to the McCanns when they did it - but don't be too surprised if others find your behaviour, and your defence of it, unacceptable. As you claim to be legally qualified, it might be worth you remembering that there is no legal age limit for leaving a child alone, but it's an offence to do so if it places them at risk*
Which raises the interesting question - if a client paid you for legal advice on their position in law if they wanted to leave a baby or young child home alone, what would you advise them?
- Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (England and Wales), Children
(Northern Ireland) 1968.
You can string a few words together reasonably cogently (in spite of the hysteria and paranoia) and so you are not in that demographic, you have abdicated any self-control to a set of prescriptive tenets which you regard as being the model for good parenting, they are not.
The law is purposefully exaggerated in this regard, by setting the bar at a paranoid level it might just startle the risk blind into actually not leaving their 5 year old in a house with a still hot chip pan on the stove or with exposed heaters around toddlers with tiny prying fingers.
You are already at the extreme caution end of the spectrum, you need to stop abrogating your responsibility to an extreme response and find a median.
Gene Vincent said:
Breadvan72 said:
...Anyway, look what has happened? Now we have our very own brand new and shiny Maddie thread...
A good thing too!This one will at least have a few voices of reason toppling the hysteria and paranoia at source and unfounded accusations will be addressed directly too.
BV out.
Gene Vincent said:
JustinP1 said:
Gene Vincent said:
You have (unwittingly) outlined exactly what a mind will conjure up from not taking due regard to the probability of anything happening at all, you compound the 'madness' by comparing an exceptionally rare event to a fairly common event as if that makes sense.
Until you gain control of your imagination and the learn to assess risk correctly you will continue to expound this exaggerated fear.
You are totally right.Until you gain control of your imagination and the learn to assess risk correctly you will continue to expound this exaggerated fear.
If people did this properly they'd never jump in their car to get a National Lottery ticket, as they'd know that there's actually more chance of them dying during the trip, and or by the weekend than winning the lottery at the weekend.
As a thought process, based on statistics, how would everyone assess the following odds and risks. The scenario is a hypothetical holiday destination with your child locked in the hotel room 80m away, with you checking every 30 mins:
What order would you put these in:
1) That your child will be abducted.
2) That your child will be murdered in their room.
3) That your child will die in an accident.
4) That your child will die of an illness.
5) That your child will die of 'natural causes' - an known or unknown defect.
6) That your child will escape from the room and die.
The same applies to your 6 scenarios, it has no regard to preparation for events etc.
Proper risk assessment does require a fair degree of thinking and if you are short on that commodity then you opt for the two extremes I've mentioned previously, the NSPCC target for the unthinking, lazy and risk blind and the opposite end of that spectrum, extreme caution almost to the point of paranoia.
That word 'paranoia' is really the correct term for the overtly over-cautious.
I am talking about whether people understand the odds of winning the lottery, and/or going out in the car and dying.
Did you not fancy trying to put the 6 in order in broad order of odds based on statistics?
TheSnitch said:
Just to separate out that question for Breadvan in case it gets overlooked:
Breadvan - as someone with a legal qualification, if a client paid you for legal advice on their position in law if they wanted to leave a baby or young child home alone, what would you advise them?
Thanks.
Don't do it if you are middle class and not prone to over the top exaggeration. Breadvan - as someone with a legal qualification, if a client paid you for legal advice on their position in law if they wanted to leave a baby or young child home alone, what would you advise them?
Thanks.
People might want to check out the Chamberlain case in Australia. She was Clearly guilty as well...
Breadvan72 said:
Gene Vincent said:
Breadvan72 said:
...Anyway, look what has happened? Now we have our very own brand new and shiny Maddie thread...
A good thing too!This one will at least have a few voices of reason toppling the hysteria and paranoia at source and unfounded accusations will be addressed directly too.
BV out.
He would advise them that every circumstance is different and to use common sense of course. Every night we all leave our children out of sight and in bed for 12 hours. I will pay for petrol and leave kids in cars which others would call irresponsible.
The reality is, though, that every single day we subject our kids to a far greater risk simply by putting them in the car than the McCanns did by leaving them alone.
Would I do what the mccanns did? Never
Am I arrogant enough to believe that my opinion is 'correct' and that I have a right to judge them when I subject my kids to higher risks on a daily basis ? Definitely not
The reality is, though, that every single day we subject our kids to a far greater risk simply by putting them in the car than the McCanns did by leaving them alone.
Would I do what the mccanns did? Never
Am I arrogant enough to believe that my opinion is 'correct' and that I have a right to judge them when I subject my kids to higher risks on a daily basis ? Definitely not
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff