Missing Madeline - Anyone else sick of this?

ejmaztec

You tell him, Snake.

When's your next movie coming out? "Escape from Portugal"

mountainyman

6th wrote:

Portugal may be poor but the parents are not. They decided to save a bit of cash.

Doesn't mean that it is right to gouge them.

12 Euro an hour for babysitting. That is the worst part of this whole affair,

MM

FatherTed

It's reached America now. I was at the grocery store yesterday and I saw her on the front page of "People" magazine with the headline "Kidnapped on Vacation".

mountainyman

Inconsistencies in the parents statement.
They claim that they could see the apartment from the restaurant.
The Sunday Tribune says they couldn't.

How do we know they were checking every half hour?
The Mirror says they weren't.

They say they locked the door.
The door opens from the inside.

If this was a single mother on benefits she would be in jail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey

MM

WindSock

Snake Plisken wrote:

AH Saintly, Rep of the Social Worker here, lets just run through some of the great decisions that you guys have made here leave me see oh yes the supportive social worker who rang the cops on the 17 yo pregnent girl carrying the headless featus or the close watch that they kept on that disturbed couple in Wexford who killed themselves and the kids I could go on. Keep up the good work you guys!!!!

Snake

Good Lord, a couple of Social Workers slip up, and they all get the blame. Of course, you never hear of all the good and difficult work that they do everyday.

Dudess

I know. Totally ridiculous post. Nothing to do with the lack of resources - all the social workers' fault. :rolleyes:

iguana

Saintly wrote:

You did suggest that that removal could be a possible outcome :

Fair enough, I guess I wasn't being clear, when I said "could be taken into care" I meant that would be based on the investigation.

As for leaving kids in hotelrooms at weddings I would have to say I don't that's right either. I know within my family all of the kids would stay in one room while one of the parents would take turns, about a half hour each, staying with them.

Tha Gopher

Saintly wrote:

Ah, the outraged taxpayer!! Please feel free to withhold the teeny tiny percentage of your tax that contributes to child protection social work wages and console yourself with the thought that they are overworked and vastly underpaid! 'The thinking' behind child protection workers as you put it, is actually based on (shock horror), legislation!! As agreed upon by the nation, taxpayers included, through the Dail.

Social workers respond to cases of emotional neglect, neglect, physical abuse and sexual abuse, based on clear guidelines for assessment and intervention as laid out in law. Under current legislation, neglect is NOT leaving your sleeping settled child alone when you are located a short distance away and check on them every 30 minutes (I have yet to see a report that states the parents did NOT check on the kids every 30 minutes). With your mentality, nobody could sit out in their back garden at night while their kids sleep.

In regards to your first point, believe me, theres quite a few places I dont like the thought of even 50 cents per year of my tax money going, its not the point. I find it bizarre that you go 100% against a common sense decision because of rules made by some suit who gets paid to manage the service without spending all of the budget. Guess what, in my work theres an awful amount of red tape, rules and regulations. When I know it goes against common sense you know what I do? I ignore it, mainly if I think i wont be caught and I know the rule is absolute tits made by someone not working on the ground with us. OK, picture this. A neighbour calls to inform you that some parents over the road routinely go to friend sin the next street and leave the kids asleep. You really dont think its worth calling out to give them a fright? re the example of the 10 year old, maybe they are more likely to get abducted in daylight in the park. Answer me this- if a fire breaks out in a house, who is more likely to survive, a 10 year old on his own or a 3 year old and her 2 year old twin siblings? We all know kidnap was the last thing on the parents minds, as it would be for anyone. However, fire should have been the main one. To be honest Im shocked we have people with your opinions being paid probably more than me when a dog in the street can see what is wrong here..

idlesupernova

Its now reminding me of the Natalee Holloway case in Aruba, blue eyed all american girl goes missing on graduation trip, Fox news take up the cause and never let it go, Botox Greta Van Sustren still gets hour shows out of it a few years on. The fact of her being reportedly off her head on drugs and getting vodka licked off her belly hours before her going missing got reported but brushed off. Put a black girl on a damaged teenager holiday, it would just be a footnote. Hate the media.

indough

digitally-yours wrote:

I know its extreemely sad that this 3 year old girl had been abducted but

what i am thinking is if any Irish or Iraqi girl will go missing will BBC and Sky report it the same way ? will it get the same publicity


why british or american blood seems to have Priority ?

30 dead in Iraq as we speak & scores injured
and they will not even be mentioned

ahhhh

1) You are watching Sky News, a British channel
2) The girl was not kidnapped as part of the war on terrorism

Saintly

THEGOPHER wrote:

I find it bizarre that you go 100% against a common sense decision because of rules made by some suit who gets paid to manage the service without spending all of the budget. Guess what, in my work theres an awful amount of red tape, rules and regulations. When I know it goes against common sense you know what I do? I ignore it, mainly if I think i wont be caught and I know the rule is absolute tits made by someone not working on the ground with us.

You're talking about common sense?!!!! You want renegade social workers running around town, ignoring not 'the rules' but the LAW?!! Sounds like a great tv show but far from reality. You have no idea what social workers do.
You have no idea that social workers work in conjuction with health board solicitors (want them to ignore the rules too?!) regarding their interventions. You have no idea that most families hire a solicitor/legal aid once they see us walking up the driveway. You have no idea that a family could and should sue the health board for such unwarranted attention. You have no idea that your scenario potentially jeopardises children in the future. Say three months after your 'give a fright' session, we receive an allegation of sexual abuse for the same children in the same family and we go to court. The family solicitor would only have to discuss our previous harrassing behaviour for the judge to throw our case out as further harrassment, leaving the kids in true and substantiated danger. Do you read the papers? Do you have any concept of the resource issues in child protection? You just have no idea. It's great that you are a cowboy in your job. It's great that you make up your own rules and follow your own wonderful gut instinct. I'm sure people love to work with a man on the edge like yourself.

THEGOPHER wrote:

OK, picture this. A neighbour calls to inform you that some parents over the road routinely go to friend sin the next street and leave the kids asleep. You really dont think its worth calling out to give them a fright? re the example of the 10 year old, maybe they are more likely to get abducted in daylight in the park. Answer me this- if a fire breaks out in a house, who is more likely to survive, a 10 year old on his own or a 3 year old and her 2 year old twin siblings? However, fire should have been the main one.

My question re the 10 year old was did you think his/her parents should receive a 'give a fright' visit? Still, I am happy to answer your scenario. Children generally don't escape housefires without adult assistance - in daytime however, the 10 year old would certainly have a better chance of escape. My point in Madeleine's case is that there is no evidence that her parents did not childproof the apartment - it was a holiday apartment, with fewer substances than you would find in a house, absolutely no evidence that the children were at risk or starting or getting caught in a fire. People are making wild speculations about the child falling into a full bath - was there even a bath in the apartment?! Yes, fire was a risk but protective factors were in place - parents could see the apartment, regular checks etc. You know the distance we are talking about is for many people, the equivalant of sitting in their back yard, having a barbeque, while their kids sleep so I cannot understand your hysteria about this.

Social workers do not have the time or authority to go around 'giving parents a fright'. You might think we are awful, terrible people for not throwing the rules out the window- which basically demonstrates that you know very little about the complex child protection/family court system we have in place in Ireland.

THEGOPHER wrote:

To be honest Im shocked we have people with your opinions being paid probably more than me when a dog in the street can see what is wrong here..

Gopher, once you get over the shock and horror, you'll wake up and smell the roses. Perhaps you and the dog on the street could set up a vigilante parenting group and go solve the woes of the world. Jail people in backyards everywhere. In the meantime, the rest of us sell-out grown ups will stick to the law...

Saintly.

Saintly

iguana wrote:

Fair enough, I guess I wasn't being clear, when I said "could be taken into care" I meant that would be based on the investigation.

Point taken!

iguana wrote:

As for leaving kids in hotelrooms at weddings I would have to say I don't that's right either. I know within my family all of the kids would stay in one room while one of the parents would take turns, about a half hour each, staying with them.

Same as mine. I have a 3 year old niece that never ever stirs at night. She would sleep through a hurricane but there is just no way I could leave her alone at night. Couldn't enjoy myself for the worry..

Saintly

liamdubh

Things have definitely quietened down in recent days. Like every news story no matter how big it is, it fades in a matter of days.

indough

Jonesy3110 wrote:

You have to consider - Would there be this much coverage if the little girl wasn't an adorable little WHITE girl?

The media is controlled by white men. Change it or get over it.

Wow, I've never seen so many people trolling one thread.

Jesus Wept

ronoc wrote:

Wow, I've never seen so many people trolling one thread.

I doubt there are many doing that. People just have wide and varried opinions?

Kurumba

Well it looks like Sky News are pulling the story at the end of the week. See link below.
They have nothing new to report so unless the Portugese police give more information to feed the media it looks like this time next week it will be old news.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91210-1266801,00.html

Crazy Christ

pokerwidow wrote:

So you don't care about any other child other than your own? What about your child's friends, would you give a **** about them? Luckily we don't all think like you.

Of course I don't feel the same way about Madeline McCann as i do about my own children. But I do love my nephew and care very much about his safety. I also care about my children's friends and would also try to help any child that I see in need. I would guess that 90% of others feel exactly like me.

I'm afraid so, I find it hard not to switch over at the very least. I used to be a good person but the media and the lack of moral guidance left me stranded in selfishland

dubsgirl

Really good honest article I think,

God love them this will be harder than ever now.

Mossy Monk

ronoc wrote:

Wow, I've never seen so many people trolling one thread.

Because you disagree with a point of view, it does not mean it is trolling.

Dudess

Exactly. What's shocking me most about this thread is people's inability to question things.

And of course Sky are going to pull it - "if it ain't dead, it ain't read".

Snake Plisken

Well the McCanns were just on giving a press conference so they are back to top story again on Sly News. So if they keep doing a press conference every few days when the story dies down that'll push it to the top of the agenda again. Mother is pretty shaken didn't say much, Father seems to be getting more into this, I'd say he probably convinced the wife about leaving the kids they'll be fine as the mother looks wrecked with guilt.

Snake

Tha Gopher

Saintly wrote:

You're talking about common sense?!!!! You want renegade social workers running around town, ignoring not 'the rules' but the LAW?!!

My question re the 10 year old was did you think his/her parents should receive a 'give a fright' visit?

Renegade social workers? I think your confusing common sense with me wanting care workers to whip an oversized glock nine out of their briefcase and cooly say "Bye book" as they fire a mini A-bomb through the latest dept of health and children budget report being waved in their face by "the man".

From reading your post its ever more clear that the dept is run by bean counters earning untold amounts to keep costs down while providing an average service. Personally I cant stand people, in my work or anywhere else, who refuse to admit the obvious shortcomings in the system. The parents wouldnt deserve to have the child taken off them. They would, however, be in need of a worker coming out and telling them their child is more important than about one seventh of their hourly wage and to have a bit of fcuking cop on. Also maybe to warn them that people who have children taken into care usually wouldnt be kept on as doctors (I presume, although the picture of the dept your story paints would lead me to be unsure) Exactly how much cost would this be to the government? The, what, maybe 9 to 12 euro per half hour the social worker is on? Whatever it is its less than the potnential cost of either a fire brigade call out or a Garda search party. Or, worse still, medical costs if the child gets injured.

Nephew

Tbh I haven't read much about this case. Have they ruled out the girl leaving the apartment in search of her parents, and perhaps drowning, falling to her death or getting lost in a forest and not abduction?

Saintly

Tha Gopher wrote:

Renegade social workers? I think your confusing common sense with me wanting care workers to whip an oversized glock nine out of their briefcase and cooly say "Bye book" as they fire a mini A-bomb through the latest dept of health and children budget report being waved in their face by "the man".

Man, you read things as you want to. I'm not talking about following budget reports (I have absolutely nothing to do with a budget), I'm talking about the law - which you blantantly said I should disregard in my daily work. The LAW!

THEGOPHER wrote:

Personally I cant stand people, in my work or anywhere else, who refuse to admit the obvious shortcomings in the system.

Who denies the shortcomings of the system?! You think it's bad from the outside?! Try working in it!! Do you regularly attend conferences, contribute to critical reports of current policy, assist families to complain against your own employer, constantly advocate for vulnerable children with the government, work till midnight, not being paid since 5. Do you regularly have to leave children in horrible situations because the government won't fund the placements they need? Are you even aware of the crappy waiting lists, the non existent educational assistance for kids with special and behavioural needs, the waiting lists for counselling in the most severe cases, including sexual abuse? How about the fact that care placements (residential and especially foster placements) are always ridiculously scarce. Have you worked your ass off to change the system from within? Nope, I and many of my colleagues have (not in a martyr fashion either - you can't avoid the above when you work as a community child care social worker.) You, on the other hand, just complain about it with the dog on the street! The same dog in the street that will probably vote in the same government that have presided over the current system for the last 10 years.

THEGOPHER wrote:

Also maybe to warn them that people who have children taken into care usually wouldnt be kept on as doctors (I presume, although the picture of the dept your story paints would lead me to be unsure

Are you serious? First off, we wouldn't have grounds to take the kids into care so what is the point of empty threats? Apart from rewarding ourselves with a lovely big lawsuit - which would take money from the health board that could potentially help other children?

Secondly, you assume because someone has a child taken into care that they automatically lose their job?!!!!! Seriously, it is like you think things in your head and then assume because you think it's right, it must be reality! There are many complex reasons why a child is removed. In the case of any sexual abuse and some forms of physical abuse, a medical licence may be removed, that however, is about it. That decision isn't made by my employer but by the medical registration board of a country (so go rant at them.)

Amazingly, enough 'your dog on the street common sense' is not used in any of the child protection systems I have worked or studied in (worked in three countries, studied in two more.) - interesting how the people of at least five other nations don't agree with your brand of common sense either.

Anyhow, we are OT enough to start a 'Down with Social Work' thread, one which would probably bore both of us and the rest of the board.

Saintly.

Tha Gopher

Nephew wrote:

Tbh I haven't read much about this case. Have they ruled out the girl leaving the apartment in search of her parents, and perhaps drowning, falling to her death or getting lost in a forest and not abduction?

No. I was reading a short piece in one of the tabloids that the police are increasingly of the opinion she wandered off. According to the paper its been confirmed that the apt door had been left unlocked. Despite what we heard previously, there is no evidence of forced entry. No DNA or fingerprints of any 3rd party have been found. All in all, it appears the kid woke up, probably got frightened when she realised the parents had left her alone, left the flat to look for them and was either kidnapped or maybe even drowned.

Saintly- you think that in a hypothetical case where a doctor has a child removed from their care they should still be potentially treating children? Put simply, you are saying that just because social services deem a doctor incapable of looking after their own children, it doesnt affect their capability to deal with other peoples kids.

I dont know what to say to that frankly.

Saintly

THEGOPHER wrote:

Saintly- you think that in a hypothetical case where a doctor has a child removed from their care they should still be potentially treating children? Put simply, you are saying that just because social services deem a doctor incapable of looking after their own children, it doesnt affect their capability to deal with other peoples kids.I dont know what to say to that frankly.

Put simply, I wish you would just read what is written. It is not what I think that is important here, (I didn't discuss my personal opinion AT ALL, I explained the current system), it is what actually happens that is the key point. You suggested that social workers should give the McCanns a fright and tell them that if their children were taken into care, they probably would lose their medical licences. This is simply not reality- not in Ireland or anywhere else I have worked/studied, so we would look pretty stupid if we said something like that to them. Your version of common sense would be construed as baseless intimidation by a family and a court. How does that help the kids?

So, just to clarify (again), social workers don't control medical licences. We have nothing to do with it. A medical licencing board has that responsibility. From my experience however, I know doctors, nurses and people from many different professions/workgroups who have had children removed (for various reasons, most on a short- medium term basis) and all continued to practice without complaint from the employer or public (particularly obvious in the case of a GP, where the local public had wide knowledge of his circumstances and his patient list didn't drop off.)

Saintly.

Blondie86Star

Watching TV today it said 1200 children have gone missing since madeline in the UK.

Am I not the only one who hasn't heard anything??

lemansky

Blondie86Star wrote:

Watching TV today it said 1200 children have gone missing since madeline in the UK.

Am I not the only one who hasn't heard anything??

I seem to have missed those reports as well.......must have head my head in the ground.Either that or the various news agencies didn't deem those kids as good enough news stories.

Snake Plisken

At least the interviews that the parents gave Sky and the BBC they were asked the difficult questions about why they left the kids on their own there answer was it was a safe resorts and we are sure 1000's would do the same they said they felt a certain amount of guilt but were getting stronger thanks to the support they have got from around the world, an hour later the police in Portugal gave a press conference and gave discription of a man seen on the day carrying a child who was kicking up, seem they have two new witnesses although its a bit late 3 weeks later to come forward.

Snake