Neglected Children: Jeremy Vine NOW

BBC Radio 2:

The Jeremy ("I'm a lightweight") Vine show has a discussion about Neglected Children coming up shortly.

Apparently an increasing number of children are being taken into care due to neglect as distinct from abuse - albeit I should have thought that neglect is abuse.

Anyway, go make a cuppa - JV is kicking off with the Capello affair.

It'll be interesting to see if the Mcs are mentioned, Jeremy Vine will stick up for them though he's fawned all over them before.

Not terribly enlightening: The usual do-gooders and a smattering of victims, but the topic hasn't even got close to "dining at the bottom of the garden".

margaret wrote:It'll be interesting to see if the Mcs are mentioned, Jeremy Vine will stick up for them though he's fawned all over them before.

I hope they aren't mentioned as 'Neglect' is what the McCanns have wanted us all to believe from the outset. No Neglect = No Abduction....they NEED us to believe the neglect story for this circus to continue. We have only the Tapas group's word for it that they left their children alone in the evenings and tbh, I don't believe a word of it.

Well I agree with that - but a lot of others are as happy to swallow the neglect thing (even though they judge it to be something "we've all done") along with the perverse "fact" of abduction.

The possibility of symbiosis between those two issues seems to escape fans of extra-long garden al fresco dining.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Well I agree with that - but a lot of others are as happy to swallow the neglect thing (even though they judge it to be something "we've all done") along with the perverse "fact" of abduction.

The possibility of symbiosis between those two issues seems to escape fans of extra-long garden al fresco dining.

Hopefully TEIN more are moving away from the Neglect story promoted by the tapas group themselves. A bunch of wealthy doctors leaving their young children, some of them supposedly very sick, alone night after night is imo every bit as ludicrous and unlikely as the Abduction Theory.

Well we differ there a bit - wealth and professional status are irrelevant. I base my views on what individuals do or don't do not on what tags they are accorded (or accord themselves!). "Class" (whatever it may be in any given context) is, for me, meaningless.


Mind you, Healy and McCann seem to have no class (with a small "c") whatsoever.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Well we differ there a bit - wealth and professional status are irrelevant. I base my views on what individuals do or don't do not on what tags they are accorded (or accord themselves!). "Class" (whatever it may be in any given context) is, for me, meaningless.


Mind you, Healy and McCann seem to have no class (with a small "c") whatsoever.

I think many parents, many who would struggle to pay for childcare while they went out, would do without to make sure their children were safe. The point about the Tapas Group being 'wealthy' is that they could hardly use shortage of money as an excuse for leaving them. The fact that all of them could easily afford childcare makes their story about leaving their kids just too daft for words.

ETA - I agree TEIN, money cannot buy class and the McCanns are an example of that.

Oh, yes - we are definitely on the same page now!

I don't understand how this forum, which seriously deals with the resolution of what happened to Madeleine McCann constantly push the neglect theory.
We scorn and dismiss them for leaving their children alone.
Rebelo, when taking over the investigation stated, all 7 children were together, they were not left alone.

The Forum doesn't push it: Some Members believe it, some don't and some are happy to let it, for now, remain an unknown. A broad church of views is a good thing.

humanist wrote:I don't understand how this forum, which seriously deals with the resolution of what happened to Madeleine McCann constantly push the neglect theory.
We scorn and dismiss them for leaving their children alone.
Rebelo, when taking over the investigation stated, all 7 children were together, they were not left alone.

Hi Humanist, I'm of the view that neglect did NOT occur.
It was the lesser of two evils. And they managed to gain
empathy by asserting that it was only verging on neglect
but not total neglect.

As far as I know Gerry has never stated WHO told him that their behaviour was well within the grounds of responsible parenting, some seem to be of the incorrect view that this was IFLG, is it that Gerry cannot state who it is because in my opinion nobody from any organisation would have said such a thing, if someone did say it to him Gerry needs to say who it was as the reputation of the IFLG is taking a battering as I have seen a number of comments which has attributed the comments to them.

Kate wrote in her book (barrister was sent out by IFLG):

Rail wrote:Kate wrote in her book (barrister was sent out by IFLG):

She heaved a sigh, did she. Her writing makes me want to heave as well.

The impression the Mccanns seem to be giving is that it was the barrister from IFLG, IFLG have never confirmed this and you will find that they will deny that this was said by their Company!!
No bona fide organisation/company would ever in my opinion, say anything of this nature, especially those which are dealing with child protection matters because it goes against all child protection policies.

Cherry1

I agree - IMO its the inclusion of the Barrister that's important. They did have advice from IFLG - I dare say - but the Barrister would inform them if they would be successful in defending a charge of neglect insofar as they state that they were continuously checking on the children. In the Barrister's Opinion it must have been affirmative.

Thinking about the "it was like dining in your garden" comment from Gerry - even well healed Mansion owners would possibly dine in an "al fresco style" - but they would be employing a Nanny/Nursery help if they had young children - the statement is erroneous to start with. The garden he was referring to was "huge" containing a swimming pool as well.

Hi Angelique, the way the book reads she seems to be saying that these legal people came from IFLG, but it seems that nobody from IFLG said the statement which has been attributed to them. IFLG sent out one of their solicitors I believe a Richard Jones, I dont know if that is the barrister who she is referring to? but the way the book seems to read is that the barrister was from IFLG.

cherry1 wrote:Hi Angelique, the way the book reads she seems to be saying that these legal people came from IFLG, but it seems that nobody from IFLG said the statement which has been attributed to them. IFLG sent out one of their solicitors I believe a Richard Jones, I dont know if that is the barrister who she is referring to? but the way the book seems to read is that the barrister was from IFLG.

Have you got a link/screenshot of this? Thanks

Possibly this QC is associated with IFLG??

http://www.iflg.uk.com/en/news/address-by-tim-scott-qc-to-the-high-court-of-justice-on-07-july-2008

The trouble is I contacted IFLG and was told that nobody from their organisation made any such comment!!

They really need to make a public statement to say this as people are pointing the finger at them making the comment!

Perhaps SY can find out from the Mccanns who actually said it!!

cherry1 wrote:The trouble is I contacted IFLG and was told that nobody from their organisation made any such comment!!

They really need to make a public statement to say this as people are pointing the finger at them making the comment!

Perhaps SY can find out from the Mccanns who actually said it!!

Cherry, did you send them this actual screenshot from the book stating that somebody from their company said it? I mean, it looks clear enough to me. Kate says, "a barrister from IFLG" and then in the very next sentence, "the barrister said". There's no denying that this is the same person, it can't be read any other way and I would have thought that IFLG would have had a libel action case against KM for writing this and publishing it in a book. It reflects very badly on them and could be very damaging to their business.

Angelique wrote:Cherry1

I agree - IMO its the inclusion of the Barrister that's important. They did have advice from IFLG - I dare say - but the Barrister would inform them if they would be successful in defending a charge of neglect insofar as they state that they were continuously checking on the children. In the Barrister's Opinion it must have been affirmative.

Thinking about the "it was like dining in your garden" comment from Gerry - even well healed Mansion owners would possibly dine in an "al fresco style" - but they would be employing a Nanny/Nursery help if they had young children - the statement is erroneous to start with. The garden he was referring to was "huge" containing a swimming pool as well.

And regardless of how big anybody's back garden is, there are not hundreds of unknown people wandering about the grounds of the house.

Iris I rang a few days ago spoke to the lady who said she was the one dealing with the case (Anne), since been told she runs the Company. I said to her I was a bit confused that this comment was being attributed to their organisation and I didnt think that anyone dealing with child protection issues would say such a thing, I was told of course they didnt say such a thing, and perhaps I should ask GM who said it. At the time I didnt have the extract from Kates book, I rang back the next day and was told the lady wasnt there so I left a message to say could you ask her to look at the extract in Kate's book as it seems that it is being said in the book it was someone from her company and if i wasnt said by anyone from the company then this is obviously damaging their name and it may be an idea for them to publicly state that they didnt say any such thing. At the end of the day a lot of people on the net are stating this about their company so I would have thought they would be concerned about the damage to their reputation and want to clear this up.

No organisation that works in child protection or any child related matters is ever going to come out and say they said it, because it would be totally ridiculous to make that statement, as a quick check of all the child protection/childrens charities will tell you that the advice is you never leave toddlers/young children alone in the house! that is a fact!!

Exactly Cherry, in fact no individual with a working brain cell would ever say such a thing, whether they are a lawyer or not. I might just actually print out that extract and send it to them (IFLG). It's high time somebody stopped TM from printing such lies.