Christmas? It is all on video camera. There are also photos of Madeleine on a small horse with Kate at her side. How many 4 year olds get regular holidays abroad? If you think that is neglect you are either
a) a billionaire
b) so poor that you are jealous of the McCanns (cough cough 17pdr)
c) just a 100% shitstirrer.
2007-12-26 02:20:04 · 29 answers · asked by Weekend at Bernies 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Neglect doesn't always mean that kids are starving on the street. Emotional neglect is just as bad. This answer is nothing to do with the McCanns or their parenting skills, it is simply to point out that kids dont always need the material posessions, they need cuddles and to be cared about.
2007-12-26 02:23:35 · answer #1 · answered by Su Do Crem 5 · 28⤊ 1⤋
Money and possessions do not come into this (apart from the fact that they could afford a babysitter and still refused) - they neglected those babies by leaving them alone to go out on the booze. Neglect does not have to be financial, it can be emotional, and this is what happened in this case. Anyway, seeing as how 96% of the population think that the McCanns are guilty of neglect, does that mean that this 96% are billionaires, jealous of the McCanns, or sh!tstirrers? I find it more worrying that people keep trying to justify what they did, because they committed child neglect, plain and simple.
2007-12-26 13:27:09 · answer #2 · answered by flamebolt666 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not categorical proof, as some of the other contributors have pointed out. However, as the less rational have failed to acknowledge, it does stand as evidence that undermines the theory that the McCann children were habitually neglected.
I am inclined to believe - because it fits the facts as I know them and is entirely rational, unlike many other theories - that Gerry & Kate McCann love all of their children and intended to keep them safe but made a huge miscalculation of the risks associated with leaving the children in the apartment while they dined. The video and photos that have been released tend to support my hypothesis.
2007-12-26 16:22:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If that child was NOT neglected then where do you think she would be now?...
At Home opening those presents!..
I'm sorry but going out on the drink with your mates leaving defenceless children to defend and cope with emergencies is as the law quite clearly states called NEGLECT!
2007-12-27 06:58:17 · answer #4 · answered by Spooky Mouse 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When my husband and I first separated I told him he could have any access he wanted to our kids.
He chose not to see them at all, but he sent a Christmas parcel up full of cheap trashy toys, most of which broke after a few days or were heavy on batteries that I couldn't afford. What they really needed was clothes, shoes and winter coats but that wasn't going to earn him brownie points.
Meanwhile he'd told all his family and friends about the number of presents he'd bought his kids then took his girlfriend and her son out for a £100 meal.
Luckily I have a very close and loving family who helped out, and my children had my undivided attention and all the love they could possibly want. I had no money to buy them much, but they got their bedtime stories, they were looked after when they were ill, they got loads of cuddles, we had snowball fights and long walks in the park, we played connections, snakes and ladders, snap, we talked and talked for hours.
So who is more neglectful, someone who provides material things such as houses, toys, holidays abroad but can't be bothered spending time with you, or someone who gives you all their love, care and attention but can't afford much in the way of material things?
2007-12-27 21:56:06 · answer #5 · answered by threepenny53 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You should have asked how many 4 year olds get regular trips abroad and then left on their own everynight while their parents went out drinking with their mates. Not many I would hope, but in the McCanns case it happened with the resulting terrible consequences.
2007-12-26 19:25:33 · answer #6 · answered by 17pdr 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Neglect comes in many forms. Just because a child has many material possessions & lives in a big house does not mean that it is not being neglected. Unlike physical abuse, neglect is not easily detected.
2007-12-26 13:01:23 · answer #7 · answered by monkeyface 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
hi
I'm not saying this is the case with the mccans,( nor am i saying it isn't), but neglect can come in many forms. Just because a child is not lacking in material things and holidays does not mean it can not be neglected in terms of not being given love, patience and time from its parents.
2007-12-26 11:21:09 · answer #8 · answered by donnajaneindigo 4 · 6⤊ 1⤋
So your saying, that every person who lives in a regular house that isn't massive, and doesn't necesairily get all the presants they want and don't always go on holiday, then their neglected? Thats one of the biggest loads of bull I have heard in a long time.
It's not neglect in the way of material things, but it doesn't show that the parents loved her and cared for her in the way parents should without holidays and presants and a big house. The neglect came when her parents left her along with younger siblings abroad..!
2007-12-26 10:39:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 14⤊ 3⤋
Rich people neglect their kids, too. It has nothing to do with class or social status.
2007-12-26 13:06:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋