the mccanns latest………food for thought?

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

funny that…you seem to think you’re entitled to your opinion, but when i post mine on here you get all upset and accuse me of “firing into people” LMAO

Yet again….another double standard

where am I accusing you of anything… im sorry but chill pill….

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

But I am sure that grandmother niether trained that dog to eat kids nor did she deliberately set the dog on the child, but the same as with this case her woeful negligence resulted in a childs death

So if there isnt already a crime of killing by negligence there bloody well should be

And as for the alternative of people totally ignoring that it WAS blatantly self absorbed negligence and not even an “accident” that caused maddy to be able to be abducted, if thats indeed what happened, but instead of stating the obvious showering unfit selfish parents with knee jerk indoctrinated pavlovian responses of symapthy and bitten tongues what message does that send out???

The message that its perfectly ok to treat your kids like a toaster and just abandon them when ever they are an inconvenience to your social life, and that IF god forbid something bad happens to them you wont have to worry about criticism or even having to face the music over what you have done because YOU rather than the child whose death you caused will in our pathetically victim stroking society will be the victim, not the child

Nah, there are already enough parents who treat their kids no more than a fashion accessory and see them and inconveniences when they interfere with their “fun”, and by pandering to such parents when their luck runs out wont exactly help in fixing that problem will it?

But, if its such a good approach to punishment would people who support that want it also applied to rapists, child molesters, burglars, drunk drivers and any other person who not by actual design happens to kill someone?

I wonder how many people would have such a pathetic weak view on this case if

a) it had ONLY been the dad who had left her rather than a couple
b) if she had been an only child, so them still being parents didnt cloud the issue

and the biggy,,,,,

c) if they werent the parents, but another family member or friend who had taken them on holiday and just left them alone

The last one is the more interesting really, as although many will CLAIM they would be JUST as sympathetic to the people who left her if they WERENT the parents just to maintain face and some facade of consistency I dont really think if honesty was expressed many people would be just as ready to hug and stroke them for leaving her alone and allowing this to happen

And if that is the case then why? Surely it should be MORE expected for the parents to take every precaution than someone who isnt that childs parent but I would lay good odds that if it was non parents to the child that had done this lynching or prosecution would be a far more common “rewards” for their action even tho they have far less reason TO be protective towards the child as it isnt even theirs

But because its the parents themselves it causes a socially indoctrinated contradictive impasse

@sweetass wrote:

IF MADDIE ( im touching wood ) has been killed…. Double standards I say

Don’t think you quite meant to say it like that Pebbles :wink: :P :shock:

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

Theres some quite dark and debached things in the world that do cause me to have an erection to touch, but the thought that a little girl might be dead certainly isnt one of them :shock:

Or did she mean a different kind of “wood”? :lol:

Discuss the problem of causation in criminal law and what rules have evolved to deal with the problem.

Causation in its basest terms is simply the remoteness of the act from the crime. This in itself has caused many problems with regard to legal argument and also subsequent loopholes that appeared within the criminal law.

It has been established over many years and tried cases, that there must be a clear and unbroken link, or chain of events, that links the defendant to the criminal act.

The first and most important point to be considered is “would the act have occurred anyway?” This is often referred to as the “but for” test. In simplest terms this means would the consequence of the defendants act have occurred in the same way at the same time ‘but for’ the defendants actions. If the answer to this question is ‘Yes’ then the defendant is not guilty…

(copyright for Anita’s benefit… off the web ^^)

When I was studying for AS level law we touched on Criminal Law and I remember a lot about causation, the chain of events, does the action of the defendant lead to the criminal act, would it still have happened if the action of the defendant happened/failed to act.

The McCanns actions whether innocently or malicously allowed this chain of events to start.

In my head I feel the book should be thrown at them.

In my heart I feel why are we not concentrating on finding the vile specimen that has taken and (probably) murdered Maddie.

Thats why I dont like criminal law

@sweetass wrote:

@ubermik wrote:

@sweetass wrote:

@~Pebbles~ wrote:

@sweetass wrote:

IF MADDIE ( im touching wood ) has been killed…. Double standards I say

Don’t think you quite meant to say it like that Pebbles :wink: :P :shock:

Oh dear God you really are senile Sourass…if you would care to recheck, I think you’ll find Mary said that, not me :lol: :lol:

Apologies Pebbles :wink: :wink: :lol:

I’m still “undulating fun pillow”tering a the “sourass” comment :lol:

Oops, I meant titering at it :oops: Flipping typos :lol:

I’ll allow Pebbles the sourass comment …she needs a bit of humour in her sad and lonely disadvantaged life :wink: :wink: :lol:

I think you should check with the orderlies first tho, just incase its against the court directives :lol: