Toddler left wandering in a Leicester Street Leicester Mercury 16 Oct 2010

Judge De Bertodano said she was suspending the jail term because the offence happened 18 months ago and the delay in sentencing was not of Merry's making.

malena stool wrote:http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/ABANDONED-TOT-WANDERING-CITY-STREET/article-2766291-detail/article.htm

ShabbyTiger wrote:

malena stool wrote:http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/ABANDONED-TOT-WANDERING-CITY-STREET/article-2766291-detail/article.htm

Not accepting comments, I see!

ShabbyTiger wrote:

malena stool wrote:http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/ABANDONED-TOT-WANDERING-CITY-STREET/article-2766291-detail/article.htm

Not accepting comments, I see!

T4two wrote:

Judge De Bertodano said she was suspending the jail term because the offence happened 18 months ago and the delay in sentencing was not of Merry's making.

So that's all right then?

fred wrote:So a child from Leicestershire is found wandering round Leicester and the man get's a suspeneded sentence? A child from Leicestershire is lost maybe wandered off round the streets of PDL and the parents are feted and made into celebs?
What a funny old world be live in!!

Dimsie wrote:But at least this man was charged and convicted, even though his sentence was suspended. He deserves it, but I'm rather surprised that some of the people charged with child abandonment don't mention the Madeleine case in their own defence. It's not as though the McCanns didn't admit to leaving the children in an unlocked apartment, nor was it unknown that they considered it a possibility - and probably a good idea - that if Madeleine woke up she could leave the apartment and go looking for them. This is clear from FP's rogatory statement -

Reply
“She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying ‘Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or’, erm, ‘or locking it and, you know, finding that we’re not there and the door’s locked if she woke up’, because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh”.

1485
“So she asked you what your thoughts were regarding locking?”

Reply
“Yeah”.

1485
“Did she say whether she had locked or?”

Reply
“No, that was the point, I think they said they’d left it, well she’d said she’d left it unlocked”.

The intention here is clear, transparently so, so why was this overlooked when considering whether this was a case of child abandonment? Why were the McCanns treated so differently from other people who did something equally reckless?

jinvta wrote:

Dimsie wrote:But at least this man was charged and convicted, even though his sentence was suspended. He deserves it, but I'm rather surprised that some of the people charged with child abandonment don't mention the Madeleine case in their own defence. It's not as though the McCanns didn't admit to leaving the children in an unlocked apartment, nor was it unknown that they considered it a possibility - and probably a good idea - that if Madeleine woke up she could leave the apartment and go looking for them. This is clear from FP's rogatory statement -

Reply
“She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying ‘Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or’, erm, ‘or locking it and, you know, finding that we’re not there and the door’s locked if she woke up’, because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh”.

1485
“So she asked you what your thoughts were regarding locking?”

Reply
“Yeah”.

1485
“Did she say whether she had locked or?”

Reply
“No, that was the point, I think they said they’d left it, well she’d said she’d left it unlocked”.

The intention here is clear, transparently so, so why was this overlooked when considering whether this was a case of child abandonment? Why were the McCanns treated so differently from other people who did something equally reckless?

Dimsie,

I have often wondered the same thing. Parents are being prosecuted, and rightfully so, for neglecting or abandoning their children every day. Why don't these parents use the "McCann" defense, that it was well within the bounds of responsible parenting to leave said children alone? It seems ironic that the parents whose children have suffered no physical harm are punished more harshly than the McCanns. Perhaps it is that feeling that they have suffered enough, I don't know.

Personally, I feel the punishment should fit the crime, and the result of that crime should be used to determine the severity of the punishment. If a child dies due to a parent's neglect, then maximum punishment should be given. Next would be if a child disappears due to neglect and/or suffers physical harm, a lesser degree of punishment should be given, but still a harsh punishment. If the child suffers no harm, then the punishment should be even less. I would certainly be complaining if I were this father and my livelihood was being threatened by the sentence (perhaps he lost his job) and the McCanns are living the high life. I would be screaming "But at least my kid is still alive, and I'm the one out of work!"

The McCanns have so far evaded prosecution, which for the life of me, I can't understand. I suppose it has to do with the PJ not being able to prosecute for neglect leading to harm and then come back for a homicide later on if evidence comes forward. I still don't see why the McCanns aren't prosecuted for neglect in the UK, however, and why Gerry is not determined to be unfit for practice.

The Famous Grouse wrote:I wonder how many patients have refused to be treated by Doctor Gerry. Do you think that LHT would have to release that figure under a FOI request? Because personally I wouldn't trust him with a tin of sticking plasters.

flower wrote:

The Famous Grouse wrote:I wonder how many patients have refused to be treated by Doctor Gerry. Do you think that LHT would have to release that figure under a FOI request? Because personally I wouldn't trust him with a tin of sticking plasters.

TFG - I think that is a question that would never be answered....... and at the end of the day....... I wonder how many of his patients even know the half of what we know........................

malena stool wrote:

flower wrote:

The Famous Grouse wrote:I wonder how many patients have refused to be treated by Doctor Gerry. Do you think that LHT would have to release that figure under a FOI request? Because personally I wouldn't trust him with a tin of sticking plasters.

TFG - I think that is a question that would never be answered....... and at the end of the day....... I wonder how many of his patients even know the half of what we know........................

In all probability most of them wouldn't care, whatever they know of his parenting skills or his personality disorder. Just as long as he prescribes appropriate and successful treatment either for themselves or their loved ones they will tolerate him as their consultant.

Dimsie wrote:I'm inclined to agree - no one has AFAIK ever questioned his skill as a doctor and I daresay that's all his patients care about.

Going back to the how come other people are charged with child abandonment but the McCanns weren't, I know it's been said in various newspapers that it was probably considered they'd suffered enough, that no punishment could ever come near the heartbreak of losing their daughter (by abduction, I mean, for those that believe this is what happened), that this is a case where mercy should be shown. But even if I believed Madeleine had been abducted I'd still want the law to be applied equally. The time for mercy, if it's going to be shown, should be at sentencing, not when deciding whether or not to bring charges. It would have been perfectly possible to bring charges in this case IMO, but if they were found guilty of child abandonment THEN it would have been up to the judge to decide whether or not to show mercy. He/she would have had various options in deciding what to do; it wouldn't have had to be a case of off to jail or whatever.

Surely the legal principle of equality before the law is sacrosanct and takes precedence over all other considerations? If not, then why should anyone respect the law at all? I've never seen anyone address this question with regard to this case; it's always the 'suffered enough' twaddle that makes a nonsense of the whole legal process.

The Famous Grouse wrote:You may be correct in the case of Mister Gerry. But I remember somebody on the old 3As (I forget who it was) that actually did have him for a consultant, and there was a huge debate as to whether they should be treated by him, or demand a different consultant and so on. Unfortunately the old 3As closed down before we ever did get to learn the outcome of that little dilemma. What has always disturbed me in a big way was Mrs Kate practicing as a GP. In that capacity she would have had to make recommendation reports to Social Services about the fitness of some of her patients to look after their own children. Would you honestly trust her to get that right if she thinks that leaving three toddlers alone is "within the bounds of reasonable parenting"? Or conversely, how many children has she had removed from their parents, for less than she was responsible for herself? The GMC should be looking at all of this. One thing, she'll never practice as a GP again. I wouldn't trust her to look after a gerbil.

The Famous Grouse wrote:You may be correct in the case of Mister Gerry. But I remember somebody on the old 3As (I forget who it was) that actually did have him for a consultant, and there was a huge debate as to whether they should be treated by him, or demand a different consultant and so on. Unfortunately the old 3As closed down before we ever did get to learn the outcome of that little dilemma. What has always disturbed me in a big way was Mrs Kate practicing as a GP. In that capacity she would have had to make recommendation reports to Social Services about the fitness of some of her patients to look after their own children. Would you honestly trust her to get that right if she thinks that leaving three toddlers alone is "within the bounds of reasonable parenting"? Or conversely, how many children has she had removed from their parents, for less than she was responsible for herself? The GMC should be looking at all of this. One thing, she'll never practice as a GP again. I wouldn't trust her to look after a gerbil.