The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Guest Sat 5 Mar - 7:44

Children are regularly starting school without knowing their name or how to open a book, says the Government's poverty adviser.

Parents are also neglecting their children so much that they do not even know what a book is or understand the word 'stop' at the age of five, Labour MP Frank Field told the House of Commons yesterday.

He outlined the parental neglect in his Wirral constituency, during a debate on the threatened closure of Sure Start Children's Centres which provide advice for parents and carers.

Mr Field also told MPs that some children at primary schools in the Merseyside area cannot hold a crayon or dress themselves when they arrive at primary schools.

He said he asked headteachers what new primary school pupils should be ideally able to do when they start primary school and was shocked at the results.

'There were some stunning replies,' he said. 'The schools would like the children to know their own names; to know the word ‘stop’, because that can hint at danger for them.'

'They would like them to learn to sit still, so they can begin playing properly and by that learn; to learn how to take off certain items of clothing; to learn how to hold a crayon; to know what a book is and how to open it the right way.

'This is not a school in Birkenhead that is one the most "challenged" as we must euphemistically call it.

'It is a school where, 20 years ago, I first learned that mums would lie about their addresses to get their children into a better school than they would otherwise be allocated.'

Mr Field, who carried out extensive research as Prime Minister David Cameron’s poverty adviser, added: ' I wonder whether I would survive if I were subjected to the things they are exposed to.'

He also appeared to back parents who bend the truth to get their children into their chosen school.

'While lying is of course wrong, I could not but have a sneaking admiration for those mothers who were acting in this way, and who knew in a ration-book economy what little chance they had to choose the best services for their children,' he said.

'So although this is not the most challenged school, even after Sure Start - in fact, it was one of the first Sure Starts in the country and has been operating for 10 years - we were still finding children who were highly-unprepared for school.'

The country's 3,600 Sure Start centres provide advice and support for parents and carers.

Their services are available to parents from pregnancy right through to when their child goes into reception class at primary school.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363022/Children-start-school-knowing-open-book-word-stop-says-Camerons-poverty-adviser.html#ixzz1FhzQ7iNr

two points for me arise here.

1. madeleine, or maddie? what WAS her preferred name?

2. we fostered a little boy once who was so neglected he was unable to say who was actually in his family. his parents had 3 boys but really wanted a wee girl. they had spoken about this imaginary wee girl so often, given her a name and everything, that to this little boy she was actually a real person. he spoke all the time about his sister Seonaid who didn't even exist. at all. it broke my heart. he was the littlest of the three and his parents were so disappointed with him for being born a boy. the wee soul will have to live with that stigma for ever. it makes me worry about the fairy tales those poor twins have been brought up on.

Guest Sat 5 Mar - 8:39

the way our schools are going they probably leave non the wiser. The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name' 25346

The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name' 25346

Sandi Sat 5 Mar - 8:52

Rep point for me marky, how very true.

None of us can say that the twins are being neglected, based on comments made by the parents and a view clips from a video. It is only natural the twins want to know what happened and ask about their sister. One minute she was there next she was gone. And we do not know what the McCanns are telling them. They could be telling them the truth for all we know.

Well I do not know the McCanns, do not live near them, have not seen them in public to gauge any opinion as to how they are raising their children. And none of those children looked as if they were not wanted by their parents to me. Yes the McCanns should never have left those children, we all know that, and they were not prosecuted for that but those children look happy and contented and do not show signs of neglect to me from the little I have seen.

**POPPY1** Sat 5 Mar - 9:13

The Famous Grouse wrote:
Children are regularly starting school without knowing their name or how to open a book, says the Government's poverty adviser.

Parents are also neglecting their children so much that they do not even know what a book is or understand the word 'stop' at the age of five, Labour MP Frank Field told the House of Commons yesterday.

He outlined the parental neglect in his Wirral constituency, during a debate on the threatened closure of Sure Start Children's Centres which provide advice for parents and carers.

Mr Field also told MPs that some children at primary schools in the Merseyside area cannot hold a crayon or dress themselves when they arrive at primary schools.

He said he asked headteachers what new primary school pupils should be ideally able to do when they start primary school and was shocked at the results.

'There were some stunning replies,' he said. 'The schools would like the children to know their own names; to know the word ‘stop’, because that can hint at danger for them.'

'They would like them to learn to sit still, so they can begin playing properly and by that learn; to learn how to take off certain items of clothing; to learn how to hold a crayon; to know what a book is and how to open it the right way.

'This is not a school in Birkenhead that is one the most "challenged" as we must euphemistically call it.

'It is a school where, 20 years ago, I first learned that mums would lie about their addresses to get their children into a better school than they would otherwise be allocated.'

Mr Field, who carried out extensive research as Prime Minister David Cameron’s poverty adviser, added: ' I wonder whether I would survive if I were subjected to the things they are exposed to.'

He also appeared to back parents who bend the truth to get their children into their chosen school.

'While lying is of course wrong, I could not but have a sneaking admiration for those mothers who were acting in this way, and who knew in a ration-book economy what little chance they had to choose the best services for their children,' he said.

'So although this is not the most challenged school, even after Sure Start - in fact, it was one of the first Sure Starts in the country and has been operating for 10 years - we were still finding children who were highly-unprepared for school.'

The country's 3,600 Sure Start centres provide advice and support for parents and carers.

Their services are available to parents from pregnancy right through to when their child goes into reception class at primary school.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363022/Children-start-school-knowing-open-book-word-stop-says-Camerons-poverty-adviser.html#ixzz1FhzQ7iNr

two points for me arise here.

1. madeleine, or maddie? what WAS her preferred name?

2. we fostered a little boy once who was so neglected he was unable to say who was actually in his family. his parents had 3 boys but really wanted a wee girl. they had spoken about this imaginary wee girl so often, given her a name and everything, that to this little boy she was actually a real person. he spoke all the time about his sister Seonaid who didn't even exist. at all. it broke my heart. he was the littlest of the three and his parents were so disappointed with him for being born a boy. the wee soul will have to live with that stigma for ever. it makes me worry about the fairy tales those poor twins have been brought up on.

Thanks Grouse for putting this on the forum,

And well said. The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name' 307691

The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name' 307691

It is a sad story, as with Madeleine.

**AnnaEsse** Sat 5 Mar - 10:46

The Famous Grouse wrote:
Children are regularly starting school without knowing their name or how to open a book, says the Government's poverty adviser.

Parents are also neglecting their children so much that they do not even know what a book is or understand the word 'stop' at the age of five, Labour MP Frank Field told the House of Commons yesterday.

He outlined the parental neglect in his Wirral constituency, during a debate on the threatened closure of Sure Start Children's Centres which provide advice for parents and carers.

Mr Field also told MPs that some children at primary schools in the Merseyside area cannot hold a crayon or dress themselves when they arrive at primary schools.

He said he asked headteachers what new primary school pupils should be ideally able to do when they start primary school and was shocked at the results.

'There were some stunning replies,' he said. 'The schools would like the children to know their own names; to know the word ‘stop’, because that can hint at danger for them.'

'They would like them to learn to sit still, so they can begin playing properly and by that learn; to learn how to take off certain items of clothing; to learn how to hold a crayon; to know what a book is and how to open it the right way.

'This is not a school in Birkenhead that is one the most "challenged" as we must euphemistically call it.

'It is a school where, 20 years ago, I first learned that mums would lie about their addresses to get their children into a better school than they would otherwise be allocated.'

Mr Field, who carried out extensive research as Prime Minister David Cameron’s poverty adviser, added: ' I wonder whether I would survive if I were subjected to the things they are exposed to.'

He also appeared to back parents who bend the truth to get their children into their chosen school.

'While lying is of course wrong, I could not but have a sneaking admiration for those mothers who were acting in this way, and who knew in a ration-book economy what little chance they had to choose the best services for their children,' he said.

'So although this is not the most challenged school, even after Sure Start - in fact, it was one of the first Sure Starts in the country and has been operating for 10 years - we were still finding children who were highly-unprepared for school.'

The country's 3,600 Sure Start centres provide advice and support for parents and carers.

Their services are available to parents from pregnancy right through to when their child goes into reception class at primary school.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363022/Children-start-school-knowing-open-book-word-stop-says-Camerons-poverty-adviser.html#ixzz1FhzQ7iNr

two points for me arise here.

1. madeleine, or maddie? what WAS her preferred name?

2. we fostered a little boy once who was so neglected he was unable to say who was actually in his family. his parents had 3 boys but really wanted a wee girl. they had spoken about this imaginary wee girl so often, given her a name and everything, that to this little boy she was actually a real person. he spoke all the time about his sister Seonaid who didn't even exist. at all. it broke my heart. he was the littlest of the three and his parents were so disappointed with him for being born a boy. the wee soul will have to live with that stigma for ever. it makes me worry about the fairy tales those poor twins have been brought up on.

Thanks Grousie. I'm not a primary teacher, but occasionally the agency I work for will send me to one if they haven't got a primary teacher available. Last summer, I went to a few primaries and did mostly year 1s. I was appalled actually, because it was near the end of the academic year and so many children were, in my opinion, way behind my then 3 year-old grandson in many ways. I think it's the problem of how these kids are when they arrive at school and I find it very worrying when 5 year-olds can't sit still for a few minutes and don't take any notice of what teaching staff are saying and asking of them. Some of those kids are almost feral.

Mollyonthecloud Sat 5 Mar - 11:00

Yes that is an extremely sad state of affairs.

I went to infant school with a boy who was so badly neglected that he looked and smelled as though he slept in a barn. His mother never came to collect him and he was always waiting by the school gates in the cold or until somebody else's mother would take him home.

Often he would be escorted home by a policeman and when Social Services were finally on the radar, the discoveries they made at his so called 'home were appalling.

It turns out that he did actually sleep in ashed and lived on bread and bits he swiped from the kitchen. No one ever bothered cooking him a meal. His mother was a chronic alcoholic with a series of abusive boyfriends and the two much older brothers were in and out of borstal. This little lad never said a word to anyone about his troubles.

That to me is true neglect. There are so many poor kids living, 'unnoticed' and isolated. Many say nothing about it because they see it as normal. Thats the tregic part.

I don't understand where the connection with Madeleine and the very sad story is though. Other than the abysmal child care arrangements on holiday - is there any other evidence to suggest that Madeleine was a victim of prolonged neglect? Or is it just the issue with the shortening of the name? If there is a link to something that suggests such, I'd like to read it.

i

**kitti** Sat 5 Mar - 11:25

Well neglect comes in many forms and disguises....

it can be obvious or it cannot.

I can assure you that just because a child has nice clothes and goes on numerous holidays does not mean they are not being neglected.

Have a nice pair off shoes and being dressed like a princess doesn't make up for the lack off being shown any physical emotion which is masked by these expensive items.

I personally think Madeleine got this emotional love from relatives and close friends, which, in my mind, does not make up for the loss off love from a parent, I think when gerry was their he gave her that, albeit in short spasms when he finally decided to go home, but none the less, Madeleine was attachéd to Gerry even maybe to the point off being a bit obsessive and upset when he was not their and probably that is why she cried for him for over an hour and not her mother and was very clingy towards him.

**AnnaEsse** Sat 5 Mar - 11:29

kitti wrote:Well neglect comes in many forms and disguises....

it can be obvious or it cannot.

I can assure you that just because a child has nice clothes and goes on numerous holidays does not mean they are not being neglected.

Have a nice pair off shoes and being dressed like a princess doesn't make up for the lack off being shown any physical emotion which is masked by these expensive items.

I personally think Madeleine got this emotional love from relatives and close friends, which, in my mind, does not make up for the loss off love from a parent, I think when gerry was their he gave her that, albeit in short spasms when he finally decided to go home, but none the less, Madeleine was attachéd to Gerry even maybe to the point off being a bit obsessive and upset when he was not their and probably that is why she cried for him for over an hour and not her mother and was very clingy towards him.

I think Eileen McCann was the person who really loved Madeleine.

Mollyonthecloud Sat 5 Mar - 11:47

[quote]

kitti wrote:Well neglect comes in many forms and disguises....

it can be obvious or it cannot.

I can assure you that just because a child has nice clothes and goes on numerous holidays does not mean they are not being neglected.

Have a nice pair off shoes and being dressed like a princess doesn't make up for the lack off being shown any physical emotion which is masked by these expensive items.

I personally think Madeleine got this emotional love from relatives and close friends, which, in my mind, does not make up for the loss off love from a parent, I think when gerry was their he gave her that, albeit in short spasms when he finally decided to go home, but none the less, Madeleine was attachéd to Gerry even maybe to the point off being a bit obsessive and upset when he was not their and probably that is why she cried for him for over an hour and not her mother and was very clingy towards him.

I agree, Neglect can be and is often very well disguised. I just can't see anything to suggest that Madeleine and her siblings were deprived, emotionally or otherwise. I may be wrong?

**Justiceforallkids** Sat 5 Mar - 11:51

FFS leaving 3 kids alone and distressed that isnt neglect??? emotional and otherwise geez just because they are drs doesnt make them saints!!!! no mother who loves their child would leave them eespecally when their daughter had even said they had been crying!!!!!!!!! reality is maddie was emotionally neglected! if not worse!!!!!! and i agree elieen mcann truly loved maddie imo she was crying on that video we have not seen kate cry like that!!!

Guest Sat 5 Mar - 12:11

Mollyonthecloud wrote:
Justiceforallkids wrote:FFS leaving 3 kids alone and distressed that isnt neglect??? emotional and otherwise geez just because they are drs doesnt make them saints!!!! no mother who loves their child would leave them eespecally when their daughter had even said they had been crying!!!!!!!!! reality is maddie was emotionally neglected! if not worse!!!!!!

Leaving three children alone in a strange apartment is an overwhelming failure in duty of care.

Is there any other evidence pointing to prolonged habitual neglect of the McCann children?

Where is the evidence that Madeleine was emotionally neglected or worse?

Why the 'FFS'? Is there any need for that? - I wouldn't usually waste my time in responding to aggressive posts, but I think you may have your wires crossed hence your apparent need to be defensive.

Leaving children unattended is enough evidence for me to know they were neglected. Just because a child shows no signs of neglect it doesnt say they are being neglected. Any parent to leave their children alone should have their children taken off them no questions asked.

**Justiceforallkids** Sat 5 Mar - 12:16

Antoinette wrote:
Mollyonthecloud wrote:
Justiceforallkids wrote:FFS leaving 3 kids alone and distressed that isnt neglect??? emotional and otherwise geez just because they are drs doesnt make them saints!!!! no mother who loves their child would leave them eespecally when their daughter had even said they had been crying!!!!!!!!! reality is maddie was emotionally neglected! if not worse!!!!!!

Leaving three children alone in a strange apartment is an overwhelming failure in duty of care.

Is there any other evidence pointing to prolonged habitual neglect of the McCann children?

Where is the evidence that Madeleine was emotionally neglected or worse?

Why the 'FFS'? Is there any need for that? - I wouldn't usually waste my time in responding to aggressive posts, but I think you may have your wires crossed hence your apparent need to be defensive.

Leaving children unattended is enough evidence for me to know they were neglected. Just because a child shows no signs of neglect it doesnt say they are being neglected. Any parent to leave their children alone should have their children taken off them no questions asked.

well said drs or not they broke the trust of maddie!!!! and neglected all 3 of their children and who knows if they did it at home???

**pennylane** Sat 5 Mar - 12:19

Justiceforallkids wrote:
Antoinette wrote:
Mollyonthecloud wrote:
Justiceforallkids wrote:FFS leaving 3 kids alone and distressed that isnt neglect??? emotional and otherwise geez just because they are drs doesnt make them saints!!!! no mother who loves their child would leave them eespecally when their daughter had even said they had been crying!!!!!!!!! reality is maddie was emotionally neglected! if not worse!!!!!!

Leaving three children alone in a strange apartment is an overwhelming failure in duty of care.

Is there any other evidence pointing to prolonged habitual neglect of the McCann children?

Where is the evidence that Madeleine was emotionally neglected or worse?

Why the 'FFS'? Is there any need for that? - I wouldn't usually waste my time in responding to aggressive posts, but I think you may have your wires crossed hence your apparent need to be defensive.

Leaving children unattended is enough evidence for me to know they were neglected. Just because a child shows no signs of neglect it doesnt say they are being neglected. Any parent to leave their children alone should have their children taken off them no questions asked.

well said drs or not they broke the trust of maddie!!!! and neglected all 3 of their children and who knows if they did it at home???

Leaving 3 children under 4 years of age, 5 nights in a row, is reckless endangerment and neglect combined!

**Justiceforallkids** Sat 5 Mar - 12:22

pennylane wrote:
Justiceforallkids wrote:
Antoinette wrote:
Mollyonthecloud wrote:
Justiceforallkids wrote:FFS leaving 3 kids alone and distressed that isnt neglect??? emotional and otherwise geez just because they are drs doesnt make them saints!!!! no mother who loves their child would leave them eespecally when their daughter had even said they had been crying!!!!!!!!! reality is maddie was emotionally neglected! if not worse!!!!!!

Leaving three children alone in a strange apartment is an overwhelming failure in duty of care.

Is there any other evidence pointing to prolonged habitual neglect of the McCann children?

Where is the evidence that Madeleine was emotionally neglected or worse?

Why the 'FFS'? Is there any need for that? - I wouldn't usually waste my time in responding to aggressive posts, but I think you may have your wires crossed hence your apparent need to be defensive.

Leaving children unattended is enough evidence for me to know they were neglected. Just because a child shows no signs of neglect it doesnt say they are being neglected. Any parent to leave their children alone should have their children taken off them no questions asked.

well said drs or not they broke the trust of maddie!!!! and neglected all 3 of their children and who knows if they did it at home???

Leaving 3 children under 4 years of age, 5 nights in a row, is reckless endangerment and neglect combined!

exactly penny a teen mother ora lower class person would be practially run out of town doing what the mcanns did!!!!! you know that old saying money talks bullcrap walks

Mollyonthecloud Sat 5 Mar - 12:38

Antoinette wrote:
Mollyonthecloud wrote:
Justiceforallkids wrote:FFS leaving 3 kids alone and distressed that isnt neglect??? emotional and otherwise geez just because they are drs doesnt make them saints!!!! no mother who loves their child would leave them eespecally when their daughter had even said they had been crying!!!!!!!!! reality is maddie was emotionally neglected! if not worse!!!!!!

Leaving three children alone in a strange apartment is an overwhelming failure in duty of care.

Is there any other evidence pointing to prolonged habitual neglect of the McCann children?

Where is the evidence that Madeleine was emotionally neglected or worse?

Why the 'FFS'? Is there any need for that? - I wouldn't usually waste my time in responding to aggressive posts, but I think you may have your wires crossed hence your apparent need to be defensive.

Leaving children unattended is enough evidence for me to know they were neglected. Just because a child shows no signs of neglect it doesnt say they are being neglected. Any parent to leave their children alone should have their children taken off them no questions asked.

If that were the way of things Antoinette there would be thousands more children in care, with even less time and fewer resources available to tend to more immediate and urgent cases. imo.

On this occasion it cost Madeleine dearly. But on the basis of that appalling lack of consideration, I can't see that the McCann children were habitually neglected. I wouldn't like to see the twins taken away from their parents on that basis, having already lost their big sister. In short it's not for me to judge.

People do idiotic, stupid, foolhardy things all the time. Only yesterday a neighbour left her little girl (aged 2) on the foot of the driveway for two hours. She'd forgotten about her. Not a conscious decision, I know but still a gross failure. What if the child had been taken ?- or toddled out onto the road ?(the gates were unlocked). The woman was beside herself when I knocked - should she have her child taken from her?

Mollyonthecloud Sat 5 Mar - 12:43

Leaving 3 children under 4 years of age, 5 nights in a row, is reckless endangerment and neglect combined!

[/quote]

Penny do you think the twins should be removed from the parents? I would have thought that is the last thing the children would want. Unless of course they are in any danger - thats different. Do you think they are?

Guest Sat 5 Mar - 12:44

Mollyonthecloud wrote:
Antoinette wrote:
Mollyonthecloud wrote:
Justiceforallkids wrote:FFS leaving 3 kids alone and distressed that isnt neglect??? emotional and otherwise geez just because they are drs doesnt make them saints!!!! no mother who loves their child would leave them eespecally when their daughter had even said they had been crying!!!!!!!!! reality is maddie was emotionally neglected! if not worse!!!!!!

Leaving three children alone in a strange apartment is an overwhelming failure in duty of care.

Is there any other evidence pointing to prolonged habitual neglect of the McCann children?

Where is the evidence that Madeleine was emotionally neglected or worse?

Why the 'FFS'? Is there any need for that? - I wouldn't usually waste my time in responding to aggressive posts, but I think you may have your wires crossed hence your apparent need to be defensive.

Leaving children unattended is enough evidence for me to know they were neglected. Just because a child shows no signs of neglect it doesnt say they are being neglected. Any parent to leave their children alone should have their children taken off them no questions asked.

If that were the way of things Antoinette there would be thousands more children in care, with even less time and fewer resources available to tend to more immediate and urgent cases. imo.

On this occasion it cost Madeleine dearly. But on the basis of that appalling lack of consideration, I can't see that the McCann children were habitually neglected. I wouldn't like to see the twins taken away from their parents on that basis, having already lost their big sister. In short it's not for me to judge.

People do idiotic, stupid, foolhardy things all the time. Only yesterday a neighbour left her little girl (aged 2) on the foot of the driveway for two hours. She'd forgotten about her. Not a conscious decision, I know but still a gross failure. What if the child had been taken ?- or toddled out onto the road ?(the gates were unlocked). The woman was beside herself when I knocked - should she have her child taken from her?

Yes she should. How could anyone forget about their child for 2 hours. At the end of the day children cannot look after themselves so its the responsibility of the "Parents" to look after them. If your not willing to take 100% of the responsibility of a child then you shouldnt have them. Children dont ask to be born, its the parents that decide to have children and sacrafices have to be made when a child is born. As they say you have to have a licence for a car but anyone can have a child.

Guest Sat 5 Mar - 12:47

Antoinette wrote:
Mollyonthecloud wrote:

Leaving 3 children under 4 years of age, 5 nights in a row, is reckless endangerment and neglect combined!

Penny do you think the twins should be removed from the parents? I would have thought that is the last thing the children would want. Unless of course they are in any danger - thats different. Do you think they are?

[/quote]
Yes they should, they left their 3 children unnatended to go drinking with their friends. They are damn lucky its only Madeleine missing and not all 3.

**Justiceforallkids** Sat 5 Mar - 12:47

rep point! Antoinette!! i dunno about portugal or the uk but here in australia it is generally agreed that children under 11 or 12 are not allowed to be left alone!!! of course theres no law but there is the law of common sense!!!!

Guest Sat 5 Mar - 12:58

Justiceforallkids wrote:rep point! Antoinette!! i dunno about portugal or the uk but here in australia it is generally agreed that children under 11 or 12 are not allowed to be left alone!!! of course theres no law but there is the law of common sense!!!!

Ill put it to you this way Carly. My daughter is 17 and because I have 4 small children I dont think she has the cpapbilities of looking after 4 kids so I dont leave them with her. She is a very inteligent young lady but my children are not her responsibility. Yes she is old enough to look after them for me but not 4 children. The most I have left her with are the 2 bigger ones, if I am going out at night my brother and his wife come up and babysit.

Mollyonthecloud Sat 5 Mar - 13:00

Antoinette wrote:
Mollyonthecloud wrote:
Antoinette wrote:
Mollyonthecloud wrote:
Justiceforallkids wrote:FFS leaving 3 kids alone and distressed that isnt neglect??? emotional and otherwise geez just because they are drs doesnt make them saints!!!! no mother who loves their child would leave them eespecally when their daughter had even said they had been crying!!!!!!!!! reality is maddie was emotionally neglected! if not worse!!!!!!

Leaving three children alone in a strange apartment is an overwhelming failure in duty of care.

Is there any other evidence pointing to prolonged habitual neglect of the McCann children?

Where is the evidence that Madeleine was emotionally neglected or worse?

Why the 'FFS'? Is there any need for that? - I wouldn't usually waste my time in responding to aggressive posts, but I think you may have your wires crossed hence your apparent need to be defensive.

Leaving children unattended is enough evidence for me to know they were neglected. Just because a child shows no signs of neglect it doesnt say they are being neglected. Any parent to leave their children alone should have their children taken off them no questions asked.

If that were the way of things Antoinette there would be thousands more children in care, with even less time and fewer resources available to tend to more immediate and urgent cases. imo.

On this occasion it cost Madeleine dearly. But on the basis of that appalling lack of consideration, I can't see that the McCann children were habitually neglected. I wouldn't like to see the twins taken away from their parents on that basis, having already lost their big sister. In short it's not for me to judge.

People do idiotic, stupid, foolhardy things all the time. Only yesterday a neighbour left her little girl (aged 2) on the foot of the driveway for two hours. She'd forgotten about her. Not a conscious decision, I know but still a gross failure. What if the child had been taken ?- or toddled out onto the road ?(the gates were unlocked). The woman was beside herself when I knocked - should she have her child taken from her?

Yes she should. How could anyone forget about their child for 2 hours. At the end of the day children cannot look after themselves so its the responsibility of the "Parents" to look after them. If your not willing to take 100% of the responsibility of a child then you shouldnt have them. Children dont ask to be born, its the parents that decide to have children and sacrafices have to be made when a child is born. As they say you have to have a licence for a car but anyone can have a child.

So we should take children from parents who make mistakes (like my neighbour - who is one of most most caring people you could ever meet, but suffered a brief lack of concentration, due to a variety of other pressures on her) and put them where? Into care? With all the other countless children whose parents have blipped (like my neighbour) Really?

There isn't much chance of my gaining any ground that the McCann twins should stay with their parents then is there?

Guest Sat 5 Mar - 13:09

Mollyonthecloud wrote:
Antoinette wrote:
Mollyonthecloud wrote:
Antoinette wrote:
Mollyonthecloud wrote:
Justiceforallkids wrote:FFS leaving 3 kids alone and distressed that isnt neglect??? emotional and otherwise geez just because they are drs doesnt make them saints!!!! no mother who loves their child would leave them eespecally when their daughter had even said they had been crying!!!!!!!!! reality is maddie was emotionally neglected! if not worse!!!!!!

Leaving three children alone in a strange apartment is an overwhelming failure in duty of care.

Is there any other evidence pointing to prolonged habitual neglect of the McCann children?

Where is the evidence that Madeleine was emotionally neglected or worse?

Why the 'FFS'? Is there any need for that? - I wouldn't usually waste my time in responding to aggressive posts, but I think you may have your wires crossed hence your apparent need to be defensive.

Leaving children unattended is enough evidence for me to know they were neglected. Just because a child shows no signs of neglect it doesnt say they are being neglected. Any parent to leave their children alone should have their children taken off them no questions asked.

If that were the way of things Antoinette there would be thousands more children in care, with even less time and fewer resources available to tend to more immediate and urgent cases. imo.

On this occasion it cost Madeleine dearly. But on the basis of that appalling lack of consideration, I can't see that the McCann children were habitually neglected. I wouldn't like to see the twins taken away from their parents on that basis, having already lost their big sister. In short it's not for me to judge.

People do idiotic, stupid, foolhardy things all the time. Only yesterday a neighbour left her little girl (aged 2) on the foot of the driveway for two hours. She'd forgotten about her. Not a conscious decision, I know but still a gross failure. What if the child had been taken ?- or toddled out onto the road ?(the gates were unlocked). The woman was beside herself when I knocked - should she have her child taken from her?

Yes she should. How could anyone forget about their child for 2 hours. At the end of the day children cannot look after themselves so its the responsibility of the "Parents" to look after them. If your not willing to take 100% of the responsibility of a child then you shouldnt have them. Children dont ask to be born, its the parents that decide to have children and sacrafices have to be made when a child is born. As they say you have to have a licence for a car but anyone can have a child.

So we should take children from parents who make mistakes (like my neighbour - who is one of most most caring people you could ever meet, but suffered a brief lack of concentration, due to a variety of other pressures on her) and put them where? Into care? With all the other countless children whose parents have blipped (like my neighbour) Really?

There isn't much chance of my gaining any ground that the McCann twins should stay with their parents then is there?

Believe me i know exactly what it's like to be under pressure. But my kids are the most important people in my life. I would never ever put them in the situation the Mcs put their children in.

Mollyonthecloud Sat 5 Mar - 13:15

Antoinette wrote:
Mollyonthecloud wrote:
Antoinette wrote:
Mollyonthecloud wrote:
Antoinette wrote:

Leaving children unattended is enough evidence for me to know they were neglected. Just because a child shows no signs of neglect it doesnt say they are being neglected. Any parent to leave their children alone should have their children taken off them no questions asked.

If that were the way of things Antoinette there would be thousands more children in care, with even less time and fewer resources available to tend to more immediate and urgent cases. imo.

On this occasion it cost Madeleine dearly. But on the basis of that appalling lack of consideration, I can't see that the McCann children were habitually neglected. I wouldn't like to see the twins taken away from their parents on that basis, having already lost their big sister. In short it's not for me to judge.

People do idiotic, stupid, foolhardy things all the time. Only yesterday a neighbour left her little girl (aged 2) on the foot of the driveway for two hours. She'd forgotten about her. Not a conscious decision, I know but still a gross failure. What if the child had been taken ?- or toddled out onto the road ?(the gates were unlocked). The woman was beside herself when I knocked - should she have her child taken from her?

Yes she should. How could anyone forget about their child for 2 hours. At the end of the day children cannot look after themselves so its the responsibility of the "Parents" to look after them. If your not willing to take 100% of the responsibility of a child then you shouldnt have them. Children dont ask to be born, its the parents that decide to have children and sacrafices have to be made when a child is born. As they say you have to have a licence for a car but anyone can have a child.

So we should take children from parents who make mistakes (like my neighbour - who is one of most most caring people you could ever meet, but suffered a brief lack of concentration, due to a variety of other pressures on her) and put them where? Into care? With all the other countless children whose parents have blipped (like my neighbour) Really?

There isn't much chance of my gaining any ground that the McCann twins should stay with their parents then is there?

Believe me i know exactly what it's like to be under pressure. But my kids are the most important people in my life. I would never ever put them in the situation the Mcs put their children in.

Neither would I. Selfish beyond comprehension. But I don't see how taking the twins into care (unless they are in danger or ill treated) would benefit them in anyway.

As for my neighbour - an entirely different case, yet you would still uproot her child and place her with strangers? Do you not think that the profound effects of that would far outweigh the chances of her being left unattended again?

**Badboy** Sat 5 Mar - 13:44

Slightly off topic,there are school leavers who can't read,write or do numbers,so a taxi driver was telling me.

Mollyonthecloud Sat 5 Mar - 13:50

Badboy wrote:Slightly off topic,there are school leavers who can't read,write or do numbers,so a taxi driver was telling me.

There was something on the regional news about that yesterday. Something about Manchester having a huge illiteracy problem - something like 25%. Ridiculous in this day and age.

Sponsored content

The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'

Re: The children who are so neglected they start school 'without even knowing their own name'