How is this different from the McCanns?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333268/Two-mothers-leave-toddler-home-drunken-night-time-ride.html

Two mothers leave toddler home alone and take two other children for drunken night-time ride

A mother left her 18-month-old child home alone at night while she went for a car ride with her drunk friend and her friend's two children. Child protection officials have described the event as one of the worst cases of neglect imaginable after it emerged that the driver of the vehicle was nearly three times the legal drive-drive limit. Last night the mothers, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were facing jail after the breathtaking neglect of their duty of care.

The 25-year-old driver had never taken a driving lesson, had no licence and was not insured to be behind the wheel of her friend's hatchback. As well as her friend, also 25, inside the car on June 2 were her four-year-old daughter, 14-year-old niece and a man. After police were called to what appeared to be a simple drink-driving case, they discovered the toddler had been abandoned at home alone.

The mother of the baby girl has admitted child cruelty and allowing her friend to drive her car without a licence or insurance. The other woman admitted exposing the two juveniles in the car in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health. She also pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, driving with excess alcohol, using a vehicle without insurance and without a licence. Their cases at Teesside Crown Court were adjourned until next month so pre-sentence reports can be prepared by the Probation Service. The toddler's mother said in the basis of her plea that she had asked someone to look after her daughter before she got into the car. The pair, who cannot be named for legal reasons, are facing jail

Police said they were alerted to the case by neighbours in Hartlepool and a motorist whose car was crashed into by the drink-driver. He followed the Renault Clio from the town onto the A19 southbound and approached it after it pulled into a service station. The man took the ignition keys to prevent it being driven away, and called police to report the incident.

It is understood that the two women, both from Hartlepool, had been drinking together during the afternoon and evening. They are thought to have gone for the car ride at about 10.30pm, leaving the 18-month-old in an 'insecure' house. A child protection expert said last night: 'The potential consequences of this episode do not bear thinking about. 'We see, all too often, distressing stories of child cruelty in the media which involve appalling physical abuse and starvation. 'This kind of thing is on a different level - neglecting children and putting them at risk - but has to be among the worst imaginable. 'There were two minors put at risk of serious harm in the car and the youngest one apparently abandoned in a house. 'Absolutely anything could have happened to the baby left in the house and those in the car could have been killed or injured in a crash.'

I guess it must be because she did not leave a 3 year old babysitter with the toddler? How else could this possibly be different to the McCanns' behavior? I'll bet Kate will not be commenting on this one...

docmac wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333268/Two-mothers-leave-toddler-home-drunken-night-time-ride.html

Two mothers leave toddler home alone and take two other children for drunken night-time ride

A mother left her 18-month-old child home alone at night while she went for a car ride with her drunk friend and her friend's two children. Child protection officials have described the event as one of the worst cases of neglect imaginable after it emerged that the driver of the vehicle was nearly three times the legal drive-drive limit. Last night the mothers, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were facing jail after the breathtaking neglect of their duty of care.

The 25-year-old driver had never taken a driving lesson, had no licence and was not insured to be behind the wheel of her friend's hatchback. As well as her friend, also 25, inside the car on June 2 were her four-year-old daughter, 14-year-old niece and a man. After police were called to what appeared to be a simple drink-driving case, they discovered the toddler had been abandoned at home alone.

The mother of the baby girl has admitted child cruelty and allowing her friend to drive her car without a licence or insurance. The other woman admitted exposing the two juveniles in the car in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health. She also pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, driving with excess alcohol, using a vehicle without insurance and without a licence. Their cases at Teesside Crown Court were adjourned until next month so pre-sentence reports can be prepared by the Probation Service. The toddler's mother said in the basis of her plea that she had asked someone to look after her daughter before she got into the car. The pair, who cannot be named for legal reasons, are facing jail

Police said they were alerted to the case by neighbours in Hartlepool and a motorist whose car was crashed into by the drink-driver. He followed the Renault Clio from the town onto the A19 southbound and approached it after it pulled into a service station. The man took the ignition keys to prevent it being driven away, and called police to report the incident.

It is understood that the two women, both from Hartlepool, had been drinking together during the afternoon and evening. They are thought to have gone for the car ride at about 10.30pm, leaving the 18-month-old in an 'insecure' house. A child protection expert said last night: 'The potential consequences of this episode do not bear thinking about. 'We see, all too often, distressing stories of child cruelty in the media which involve appalling physical abuse and starvation. 'This kind of thing is on a different level - neglecting children and putting them at risk - but has to be among the worst imaginable. 'There were two minors put at risk of serious harm in the car and the youngest one apparently abandoned in a house. 'Absolutely anything could have happened to the baby left in the house and those in the car could have been killed or injured in a crash.'

I guess it must be because she did not leave a 3 year old babysitter with the toddler? How else could this possibly be different to the McCanns' behavior? I'll bet Kate will not be commenting on this one...

Two differences: the incident took place in the UK and the people concermed are not doctors.

T4two wrote:
Two differences: the incident took place in the UK and the people concermed are not doctors.

Of course! Silly me - concerned only about the child and all...

This must be an example of a psychologists perception of "reasonable parental behavour". I recall this being said by a particular couple who left their three very small children to fend for themselves whilst they were out eating and drinking ~ the result of which was they lost one!

As this is considered to be an acceptable way of conducting your family affairs I can't see what the fuss is about, after all it falls within the boundaries of reasonable parental behaviour. Follow the example of the Mail and concern yourselves with protecting the mother and her drunken exploits, with a mere cursory mention of the baby left to fend for itself! Perhaps Max Clifford or Clarence Mitchell might be at a loose end ~ oh no, of course this woman wouldn't be able to afoord them, it would have to be a charitable act on their part.

The Mccanns have got one hell of a lot to answer for!

Someone has commented:

Shades of discrimination...............
When another parent left her child alone with 2 other children to go drinking with pals she wasn't facing jail for CHILD NEGLECT.
I know this person drove and could've killed someone, but the other child disappeared and nothing happened to her parents. No child neglect charges even though they refused to help the police.

One rule for doctors who are the parents of the missing child, and another rule for ordinary people with children.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333268/Two-mothers-leave-toddler-home-drunken-night-time-ride.html#ixzz16QBctf3q

Can't think what they might be referring to.

Sent in a comment: 'If the child had been left with a three-year-old babysitter would they still be facing neglect charges?' Also green arrowed a couple of comments.

fedrules wrote:Sent in a comment: 'If the child had been left with a three-year-old babysitter would they still be facing neglect charges?' Also green arrowed a couple of comments.

I quite liked this succint one:

Disgraceful behaviour.

When does their book come out ?

docmac wrote:
I quite liked this succint one:

Disgraceful behaviour.

When does their book come out ?

Porky wrote:This must be an example of a psychologists perception of "reasonable parental behavour". I recall this being said by a particular couple who left their three very small children to fend for themselves whilst they were out eating and drinking ~ the result of which was they lost one!

As this is considered to be an acceptable way of conducting your family affairs I can't see what the fuss is about, after all it falls within the boundaries of reasonable parental behaviour. Follow the example of the Mail and concern yourselves with protecting the mother and her drunken exploits, with a mere cursory mention of the baby left to fend for itself! Perhaps Max Clifford or Clarence Mitchell might be at a loose end ~ oh no, of course this woman wouldn't be able to afoord them, it would have to be a charitable act on their part.

The Mccanns have got one hell of a lot to answer for!

Porky

Agreed - but they don't do answers!

Of course, they blame the "person with malicious intent that went through that window and took Madeleine from the safety and security of her family" - courtesy of Aunty Phil!

Angelique

Double post! I am not sure why opppps.

Porky wrote:This must be an example of a psychologists perception of "reasonable parental behavour". I recall this being said by a particular couple who left their three very small children to fend for themselves whilst they were out eating and drinking ~ the result of which was they lost one!

What sort of mature responsible Mother? would leave three very young Children all alone in an unlocked Apartment, then expect her Three Year Daughter if she woke up to get out of the Apartment, then for her small Daughter to try to find her Mother at Night while she was out having her me time, its just seems incomprehensible to me, perhaps the door was never left unlocked and it was what is called staging by Kate.

Fiona Payne's Statement below.

1485 “But you said that Kate told you about Madeleine waking up?”
Reply “Yeah”.
1485 “And you couldn’t remember, you didn’t, you weren’t sure whether it was the night before?”
Reply “Yeah”.
1485 “Or, you know, the night before that?”
Reply “Yeah”.
1485 “What were the circumstances regarding her telling you that?”
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”.
1485 “Left the patio?”
Reply “And she felt a bit nervous about it but Gerry, Gerry had sort of said ‘Oh it will be fine’, you know. But she was obviously, because it wasn’t something she was quite easy with, that’s the way it came across, you know, but, but Gerry said, you know, ‘It’ll be fine. It’ll be fine’. Because I don’t imagine she would have said anything otherwise if it hadn’t been on her mind. And the fact was she, she, you know, commented on it being really strange that, that Madeleine had said this about waking up and them not being there and she’d mentioned that in the context of that conversation”.
1485 “And can you remember exactly what she said that Madeleine had said?”
Reply “Tut, just words such as, erm, ‘Sean and I woke up and we were crying mummy and where were you’”.
1485 “Okay. Did she say what she said to Madeleine after that?”
Reply “No, I think, it was more, the conversation was more Kate said she was trying to get more out of Madeleine, but as kids are, you know, they sort of move on and she wouldn’t really, she couldn’t really get out of her what had caused her to wake up or, or, erm, you know, whether she’d just woken up anyway and, you know, she never, never got that out of Madeleine”.
1485 “And what did you say?”
Reply “She didn’t seem frightened or anything, I mean, that is what Kate did say, you know, it wasn’t something that had frightened Madeleine. I said, in the context of the holiday, I guess I just said ‘Oh I’m sure they’ll be fine’”.
1485 “Right”.
Reply “Much to my regret”.
1485 “Was that the early part of, I mean, because you have only got a window of about an hour really, haven’t you, in between, you know, you sitting down and Kate going and raising the alarm?”
Reply “Yeah”.

Angelique wrote:

Porky wrote:This must be an example of a psychologists perception of "reasonable parental behavour". I recall this being said by a particular couple who left their three very small children to fend for themselves whilst they were out eating and drinking ~ the result of which was they lost one!

As this is considered to be an acceptable way of conducting your family affairs I can't see what the fuss is about, after all it falls within the boundaries of reasonable parental behaviour. Follow the example of the Mail and concern yourselves with protecting the mother and her drunken exploits, with a mere cursory mention of the baby left to fend for itself! Perhaps Max Clifford or Clarence Mitchell might be at a loose end ~ oh no, of course this woman wouldn't be able to afoord them, it would have to be a charitable act on their part.

The Mccanns have got one hell of a lot to answer for!

Porky

Agreed - but they don't do answers!

Of course, they blame the "person with malicious intent that went through that window and took Madeleine from the safety and security of her family" - courtesy of Aunty Phil!

Angelique

Angelique,

Which window would that be? The open one or the shut one or was that the shutter? ~ Answers! Only Kate would know because she was there!

The security and safety of her parents? Would that be before she disappeared, after or during the process of her disappearing? Must have ben during whilst they were drinking and eating in the back garden ~ or maybe we should ask Kate if she knows the answer because she was there!!! Obviously Aunty Phil can only be guided by Kate and Gerald ~ or was she there as well?