WHEN MASS HYPNOSIS DOES NOT WORK.....

Missing Madeleine McCannby Hazel W.M. McKinlay, Oct 17, 2007

Three year-old Madeleine McCann and her two year-old twin siblings, were left alone in a ground floor holiday apartment at the Ocean Club in the Algarve, every night, while their parents, Kate and Gerry dined at a Tapas Bar with seven friends, all medical practitioners. The McCann’s believe this was responsible parenting and the Social Services and media agree that at worst they were naive. On Thursday May 3^rd Madeleine vanished from her bed without trace and her parents raised the alarm, claiming she had been kidnapped, or “taken” as they prefer to say. The twins sleeping nearby did not wake during the ensuing commotion.

However, I have suspected the parents involvement from the outset, for the simple reason that on the day following Madeleine’s disappearance, when they should have been back at the hotel, in pieces, being comforted by friends and waiting for the phone to ring, (like normal folk) Gerry chose to act as media spokesman, dispensing with intermediaries, such as a liaison officer or lawyer. Instead of speaking from the heart, he read from a script and didn’t choke-up or break down; actually, I have yet to see this “devoted father” shed a real tear.

His wife said nothing, no appeal, no begging or pleading for the kidnapper to return her daughter, not a word. From then on, I began scrutinising their behaviour and demeanour and I bet the Polícia Judiciária did too.  Chief inspector Oligeario Sousa went along with the abduction theory to exhaust this possibility, but also to avoid alerting the McCann’s to the fact they were under surveillance. The PJ are not as incompetent as ‘Team McCann’ would have us believe, they were quietly gathering evidence and building their case.

With enough rope to hang themselves, the McCann’s embarked on a tour in Sir Philip Green’s private jet, meeting everyone from Alberto Gonzales to the Pope. What a rare privilege! But not once in their many interviews did they speak loving or comforting words directly to their daughter through the media, regardless of whether she may hear it... Why, because they knew she never would? Apparently the FBI regards this as an indication of guilt. They both discussed the situation in a nonchalant and matter-of-fact manner.

At one point Gerry stated, “We have grieved” which struck me as odd, since you usually grieve for the dead, whereas for a missing child, you continue to worry yourself sick... Nonetheless, they retained their composure and appeared relaxed, blogging about jogging and enjoying “mince and tatties” with the family, nothing about Madeleine though! The British media fawned over the couple, portraying them as saints who couldn’t possibly be guilty, but nobody really knows their true character or what goes on behind closed doors.

One week after the disappearance, they launched a ‘fighting fund’ to find Madeleine, which has accrued a total of £1,091,108.67 donated by genuine well-wishers and rich celebrities. They began a series of tacky publicity stunts, selling ribbons, wrist bands and T-shirts from the online ‘Madeleine Store’ and planned a balloon launch, two weeks in advance, to mark the 50^th day of her abduction. How did they know she would still be missing?

There were discrepancies in their version of events. They claimed the shutter was forced, but when that was disputed, they said the door was not locked. Dr. O’Brien left the Tapas Bar for half an hour, supposedly to attend to his own daughter who was vomiting. He then left the sick infant to return to the restaurant. Another negligent parent, or was he attending to something else? The McCann’s friends implicated Robert Murat, by placing him at the scene and Jane Tanner was the only one to see a man carrying a child  towards the beach. However, the Tapas 9 drank about eight bottles of red and four bottles of white wine. I’m surprised they could see anything! Tanner changed her story four months later, claiming the child was wearing pink pyjamas and the man was heading towards Murat’s house.

When asked about the first thing that crossed their minds when they came back to the room from dinner and realized that Madeleine wasn't there, Kate replied, “I knew straight away she'd been taken” she continued, “well, put it this way: I mean, she hadn't walked out of the apartment.” Gerry said, “When I got there and Kate told me, and when I looked at the scene as well, I had absolutely no doubt.” But Alex Woolfall from the Bell Pottinger PR group said, “They gave no indication that they thought she had been snatched, let alone by a paedophile. Their early assumption was that she had wandered off and had an accident or been taken in by a well-meaning stranger.” So, which was it?

It is alleged that Gerry and a friend were spotted near the Nossa Senhora da Luz chapel on the evening Maddy disappeared. This is the last place police would look for a body and Father Jose Manuel Pacheco, who gave the parents keys to this church was reprimanded and replaced, two days after the “abduction.” I don’t suppose there is much use taking the cadaver dogs to the cemetery, they would go berserk! When it was revealed these dogs had detected the scent of a corpse on Kate’s Bible, clothes and hire car, Philomena McCann exclaimed sarcastically, “What, dogs can talk now?” Er...yes! Not in so many words but by reacting, like Keela the world renowned Springer Spaniel was trained to do.

Only when they became Arguidos, did they begin to describe their predicament with expressions like, “unbearable anguish, extreme distress, pain and turmoil and an unending nightmare...” It’s a pity they didn’t demonstrate these emotions after their daughter vanished. The McCann’s said they were “happy” to assist police if it brought progress to the investigation, yet they refused to answer forty questions. So much for their catch phrase: ‘Leaving No Stone Unturned.’ Then, despite vowing to stay in Portugal, they scurried back home in the VIP lounge of Easyjet!

The McCann’s behaved like the Ramsey’s after Jon Benet’s murder, hogging the limelight, hiding in plain sight.... and like the Ramsey’s, they may well get off Scot free! They have friends in very high places, not least Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah Macaulay whose colleague Julia Hobsbawm is the founder and chief executive of Editorial Intelligence, which is spinning the ‘Immaculate McCann’ fairy stories, she is also an associate of Sir Philip Green. Clarence Mitchell, director of the Government's Media Monitoring Unit, became their spokesman, paid for by an anonymous billionaire benefactor. Hans Christian Anderson was not available!

Gerry hoped to use the fighting fund for their defence against killing her, saying, “It’s a huge disaster, we have this enormous fund and can’t use it for legal fees because we are suspects.” Wouldn’t they rather it was used for its purpose, to find Madeleine? But Sir Richard Branson and Everest Magnate, Brian Kennedy stepped in to cover the exorbitant cost of extradition lawyer Michael Caplan QC who charges £700 per day and successfully defended mass-murderer General Pinochet. With so many Knights of the Empire pulling strings for them, I can’t see a trial materialising, far less a conviction, but “Bring it on!” says Gerry, with four top lawyers waiting in the wings.

Team McCann will claim they cannot receive a fair trial due to the intense publicity, (which they generated) and when that won’t wash, unlike Maddy’s toy ‘Cuddle-Cat’ which Kate uses as a prop, they will insist they are being framed. When forensics refutes that, their defence will depend on the forensic evidence being made inadmissible, due to a bungled preliminary investigation. Sir Alec Jeffreys, the father of DNA fingerprinting from the University of Leicester is prepared to testify in court that his discovery is not worth a jot. In which case everyone who has been acquitted or convicted on DNA evidence should have their cases reopened.

If evidence was planted by the perpetrator, as Kate implies, then we must assume he/she was still lurking around Praia da Luz when their car was hired, but Philomena said on May 12^th, "We don't believe that she is in Portugal anymore and need to get her picture and the story across Europe as quickly as possible." They believed Madeleine could be as far away as Argentina! Once again, which is it? If police planted cadaver secretions, then they must have had access to the body, but toxicology tests on hair or fluids would determine if the child was drugged, which could be the most damning evidence of all.

When asked during an interview if they medicated their daughter, they both smiled. Gerry laughed nervously, averted his gaze, looking downwards and rubbed his ear. This is text book body language of a liar. Kate blinks excessively; often closing her eyes completely and keeps an object between herself and the questioner, the ever present pink ‘Cuddle-Cat.’ When asked awkward questions in a Spanish interview, Gerry stormed out! It doesn’t get more evasive than that.

Caring for three toddlers, all less than three years of age is incredibly stressful. Before she became a suspect Kate admitted that after the twins were born Madeleine “would run up and down screaming in the background, shouting for my attention.” I could almost sympathise with Kate (an anaesthetist) if she sedated them, but what is unforgivable is if they disposed of the body (to avoid an autopsy) without a Christian burial while professing to be devout Catholics. Maybe that’s why they got Ratzinger to personally bless Maddy’s picture.

Gerry has suggested the child was snatched to order by a paedophile ring, yet Kate said, "Madeleine is such a sociable child, so funny and engaging. She has a lot of personality. I bet she's giving whoever she's with her tuppence worth.”  Of the many crass statements this couple have made, this is the most shocking and needs no further comment from me. Their recent outburst, “Find the body and prove we killed her” sounds like a taunt! I believe they concocted the abduction scenario because there was too much at stake, namely their careers, which would have brought an end to their affluent lifestyle. This has not been proven, but if the McCann’s are guilty the implications are monumental.

If they killed their child by accident or otherwise, they covered up a serious crime and unlawfully disposed of the body. They deliberately tried to frame an innocent man, Robert Murat who said, “This has ruined my life and made life very difficult for my family here and in Britain.” Murat insisted, “I've been made a scapegoat for something I did not do.” He is now broke! A Russian who was also wronged, Sergey Malinka said, “I've invested seven years of my life in this country trying to succeed, and suddenly in one hour it's all fallen apart.”

The McCann’s extorted vast sums of money which they knew would never be used to find Madeleine, but was intended for their own expenses. They roped young children into raising cash and collecting donations. Football, rugby and cricket teams assisted in their fraudulent publicity campaign. They knowingly duped millions of concerned people. This deceitful couple betrayed their extended family and their daughter’s twin siblings. Their actions are cowardly and contemptible.

They insulted the integrity of Portuguese authorities and wasted valuable police time and resources. They allowed a bewildered Berber family to be harassed by the press because their daughter resembled Madeleine, and smeared Moroccan Muslims. They tried to engender sympathy for themselves, when it was their own daughter who was the victim. They used and abused her name to evade the law and escape justice. They and their friends have shamed their profession. Who will trust doctors again? Still, Madeleine may yet turn up in the home of some crazy kidnapper, I doubt it, but here’s hoping...

THE CHRISTMAS MIRACLE

Christmas , almost here again and once more I shall place the fairy ( the same one from my childhood) on top of my pine christmas tree, buying gifts and sending greeting cards to friends. While all this is happening in happy family homes, there will be Christmas activity of another kind in Rothley. I am not saying this is not a happy family home, I am sure that it is.. BUT a different Christmas being prepared ,a commercial - type plus interviews for television. The ever faithful Sun will have an exclusive. The Interviews may have already taken place. Christmas is a busy time for the media and they like to be prepared.

The latest video, or never seen before photograph of Madeleine McCann, the speech from the McCanns and of course the need for more donations to keep up the search for their lovely daughter Madeleine ,who will be eight years old in May.

The gullible, still believing the McCanns have people working in Portugal , their own private detectives, who would be arrested on sight for even attempting to meddle in this shelved affair.

Madeleine, who is according to her father now wearing contact lenses and her mothers off the cuff comment 'Oh it is just a flash, you would have to be really close to even notice it '  is no longer of any importance. So, the little girl with the unusual right eye would no longer stand out in a crowd.

Christmas, and the time of all things majical. Children who still believe in father christmas, will be taken by loving parents to large stores with their christmas list to sit on his knee and pull at his fluffy white beard. After, roasted chestnuts as carols are sung by the Salvation Army in the crowded London streets. 

The year 2007,  many  did not believe and believe even less today. One day, at sometime, little children all realise father Christmas does not exist as surely one day there will be those who realise Madeleine is not alive and will never come home. Madeleine died young still believeing in father Christmas, now thats a comforting thought.

Reporter David Jones was there in PDL and his own thoughts were it would be impossible to have taken the child, something niggled at him and he thought the McCanns were somehow involved

David Jones had to make a retraction. Why was David not allowed to keep his own personal opinion, why two years later was he made to change his mind?

This article from Greens Insite, well written and well thought out, taken from 2007.


It’s about six months now since little Maddie McCann disappeared without trace from her parents’ holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. Six months is a long time and unless you have an extra faith and confidence gene in your biological make-up the logical conclusion would be that she is now dead. It’s extremely unlikely that -as some have reported- Maddie has actually been seen in Morocco, Belgium, Spain or anywhere else. I rule out Morocco because no childless Moroccan woman would, in desperation, snatch a northern European, blonde toddler who chats only in English and would, in a Berber village, stand out a mile.
 

For the same reason I don’t believe that a paedophile would have taken her to North Africa. It’s not the sort of place where deviant sexual tastes are allowed to flourish, is it? As for sightings in Spain, Belgium or Malta, I remember when Elvis for years after his death kept turning up in shopping malls, supermarket checkouts and petrol station forecourts. People tend to see what they want to see. So, unless she’s been stolen to order on behalf of a white, English speaking childless couple in, say, Washington DC (and, with hair dyed dark, made unrecognisable) we might as well start operating on the premise that Madeleine is no longer in the land of the living. The fact that, so far, no body has been found should not sustain false hope; a dead girl is much easier to hide than a live one.

Which brings me to the McCanns. While, on one level, I find it utterly impossible to believe that either parent had anything directly to do with Maddy’s disappearance, on another I’m dumbfounded by the fact that two apparently intelligent people have, through their subsequent behaviour, managed to arouse the suspicions not only of the Portuguese police but also of a hitherto understanding, commiserating public. British opinion polls show that domestic support for the McCanns, once almost universal, is now down to as little as 50 percent. In other words: for every person who is sympathetic towards them there’s another who feels they know more than they let on. The McCanns’ choice of an active media campaign and an almost manic courting of publicity is beginning to look to many peope as a ’flight forward’: something like “so long as we blind everyone with TV appearances, appeals, fundraisers, adverts, photographs of the poor child and images of Kate clutching a cloth rabbit we may stave off public scrutiny of our own role in the affair.” Whether the parents actually played a role in the disappearance of Maddie I’ve no idea, but the fact that their behaviour doesn’t follow the expected pattern of panic, grief and eventual resignation to the inevitable (i.e. Maddie’s not coming back) is a cause for worry.   

        

Another reason for worry is, of course, the fact that the Maddie disappearance has been blown up into a global cause celèbre, whereas each day hundreds of children around the world vanish without attracting much attention at all. The amount of money raised to fund the McCann’s search for their child and their defence against any future charges is unprecedented. I’m not concerned about the large amounts donated by captains of industry and other celebrities; £100,000 -as in the case of Richard Branson- buys you a favourable mention on the front pages and seems well worth it. Lots of other publicity-hungry celebs jumped on the same bandwagon with great alacrity. But I feel for the ordinary people who, out of the kindness of their hearts, made smaller gifts of money they could ill afford. To see that frittered away on £300-an-hour lawyers, flights up and down Europe for all the family, newspaper and TV adverts and billboards, following up on spurious sightings and the occasional mortgage payment on a £300,000 house is sad indeed.   Of course, if Maddie McCann turns up alive tomorrow I’ll have to eat my words. But I don’t expect to have to, merely because the girl’s immediate family profess to know she’s not dead. A few days ago, after six (6) months of fruitless campaigning and fundraising, the McCanns on their website still spoke to us from cloud-cuckooland: “We know in our hearts that Madeleine is still out there, alive, confused and aching to be returned to her family where she belongs.”  

In other words: keep the money rolling in, folks, we’ll decide when enough is enough.

'MISSING' WHITE GIRL SYNDROME

HAD MADELEINE BEEN BLACK.........

'MISSING WHITE GIRL SYNDROME'  continues to be one of the most pernicious expressions of our contemporary media culture. The latest celebrity victim is an adorable little girl named Caylee Anthony, a child who has been missing for months from the care of an unstable mother, who remains in jail on charges related to her daughter's disappearance. In spite of days and days of fruitless searching -- and hundreds of hours of cable television coverage -- Caylee is presumed by many to be dead.

Caylee Anthony is the latest in a long list of celebrity victims, or should I say, victims who become celebrities. You know their names by now: Polly Klaas, JonBenet Ramsey, Elizabeth Smart, Chandra Levy, Laci Peterson, Natalee Holloway, and now Caylee Anthony. These victims, who were either kidnapped or murdered or both, have several things in common:

(Caylee's body has since been found and the bizarre twisted tale of her mothers life has been exposed)

• They are white.
• They are female.
• They are young.
• They are either cute or attractive.
• They are middle class or upper-middle class.
• They are the center of a mystery: either "where is she" or "who killed her."
• They have advocates who are capable of keeping their names in the news.
• They have a photo or video record of their lives that can be used, over and over again, by television producers.

So what, you may ask. These girls or women are interesting characters. So what if I am drawn to care about what happened to them?

My answer comes in the form of additional questions: What about the black children or brown children who are missing or dead? What about the poor children? What about the boys? What about the men of any color?

Beneath the endless cable promotions and unquenchable public curiosity is a dark hole. If you shine a light into that hole you will find three familiar demons: racism, sexism, and a virulent class bias. I am not arguing overt discrimination here. Instead, I believe that those who produce this coverage have succumbed to a collective failure of vision.

That failure happens to be an old, sad story in journalism, and you might have thought we would have evolved beyond it by now. Back in the day, especially in big-city newsrooms, there were too many murders to cover. So white reporters and editors drew a distinction between a "good" murder and a "bad" one. A good murder involved a debutante, a cheerleader, a young, beautiful heiress. A bad murder, the one you didn't have to cover, involved street thugs, or gang members or drug dealers.

The missing white girl syndrome allows television producers to manipulate some of the most ancient and insidious stereotypes in our culture: the damsel in distress, the lost child, the kidnapped princess. Here's how it works, especially as stage-managed by the likes of CNN's Nancy Grace. First you identify an appropriate victim. Then you alert us time and time again of her and our collective vulnerability. The exposure turns the victim into a celebrity, a household name. You create an irresistible story engine, a question that viewers need to have answered: Is this girl dead or alive? What happened to her? Where is she? Who did this to her? Why isn't law enforcement more effective in finding the victim or prosecuting the criminal? Finally, to justify continuing coverage, you treat even the tiniest new development in the case as "breaking news" or an "exclusive report."

In doing all of this, you create an illusion that what is interesting is also important. As the father of three white daughters, I would never dismiss the pain that comes to loved ones from the horrible tragedy of a kidnapped or murdered child. But who could argue that the issues behind the loss of any of these children warrant the amount of soap-opera style coverage they receive?

Please try and think of exceptions to this coverage if you can. Perhaps you recall the recent case of murder involving relatives of actress and singer Jennifer Hudson, who lost her mother, brother, and nephew. Jennifer Hudson gained her fame through "American Idol" and her Oscar-winning performance in "Dreamgirls," and it was her celebrity that drove the news coverage, not the plight of her missing 7-year-old nephew.

Do you remember his name? It was Julian King. If he had been a pretty white girl, it would probably be on the tip of your tongue.


AUTHOR: Roy Clark

THE FEEDING FRENZY

According to Kelvin McKenzie, ex-editor of The Sun, having the McCanns on the front page of a newspaper means the paper will sell up to 15,000 more copies. The McCanns are a major cash cow for newspapers and they have been used shamelessly.

Any exploitation has been a two-way street. The McCanns have used the papers to spread their story and the papers have used the McCanns to sell copies. This Faustian pact served their interests for a long while, the problem is that when you do a deal with the devil you tend to lose your soul.
Even if they are used to sell newspapers, the fact that the sales volume increases is because people are interested in the ongoing story. The fact that people are interested does not mean that they regard the McCanns of playing the media and does not mean they are any less sympathetic.

The McCanns were sympathetic at first, only a monster would be unmoved by the plight of grieving parents. However, as we’ve learnt more about them they’ve become more unlikeable and doubts have emerged about their own conduct. The media haven’t needed to do any knocking down, the McCanns have shown themselves quite capable of providing enough material to criticise them as it is.

Her parents have been complicit in their own downfall. They are the ones who left their three small children alone while they could eat and drink in peace. No good parent would even think about doing such a thing and whilst it in no way excuses the taking of Madeleine it does account for some of the lack of sympathy the public feel towards her parents.

Her parents and their PR machine have created a monster, they’ve clamoured for every bit of press that was going, supposedly to get Madeleine’s face out there but in all likelihood because they like being the centre of attention. Having created this monster it is hardly fair for them to complain when it turns around and bites them.

There is something strange and unlikeable about the McCanns. People haven’t lost sympathy for the disappearance of their daughter for any other reason than the McCanns themselves don’t seem to deserve any. Kate is far too aloof and Gerry too professional. They also have a strong whiff of suspicion hanging around them.

IS IT SAFE TO LEAVE YOUR CHILD ALONE ?

Professor Carolyn Hamilton offers her legal opinion.


Scenario 1: You have three children under 5. You go shopping at the supermarket for 20 minutes, leaving them asleep in their car seats with the doors unlocked to avoid their movements triggering the car alarm.

This scenario is not advisable. It is an offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to neglect or abandon a child under the age of 16 for whom a parent or carer has responsibility, but the law gives no detail of what amounts to neglect or abandonment. Prosecution and/or conviction depend largely on the circumstances. The punishment can range from a fine to ten years’ imprisonment.

The court is to likely to take into account the age and maturity of the child, for how long he or she was left alone and the arrangements to ensure his or her safety. Here, the children might get out of the car and wander on to the road – or anybody could remove a child from the car.

If the car doors were locked the children might be safer, but then what might happen if the children became very distressed in an enclosed space? Technically, children should not be left alone like that until they are 16. Five minutes might be acceptable in a locked car; 20 minutes is too long.

Scenario 2: You have 18-month old twins. You put them down for their afternoon nap in their cots, then dash down the road to get a pint of milk for a cup of tea. You are gone for less than ten minutes.

In this scenario, if the twins were asleep in cots and couldn’t get out, a parent might reasonably decide to leave them. If they were able to walk about – for instance, leaving a child of 6 awake and alone at home for ten minutes – it would be more problematic. You would need to worry not only about intruders but also about accidents; the possibility of a child burning some toast, for example, and starting a fire.

For a child of about 12 and above, it would depend largely on his or her maturity and factors such as whether he or she had been left at home alone before. Obviously it would be much better to have neighbours who could check up, and doors should be locked. I would never recommend leaving a child of any age for very long, but for children in cots, ten minutes is probably safe enough. I wouldn’t say this situation is desirable but it’s better than scenarios 1 and 3.

Scenario 3:You have three children aged 10, 8 and 6. You go out for dinner, leaving them in bed at home. You tell the eldest to ring you on your mobile if there are any problems.

This would be a real matter for concern. If the parents were out for dinner, they might easily be gone for a few hours. Even if this was for lunch and not for dinner (so in the middle of the day) it would still be highly undesirable.

If they were very close by and checking on the children often, the situation would be different – but leaving three children of that age alone for several hours would still be extremely unadvisable, as the potential risks are simply too great unless you can come back and check on them often.

Even if the eldest child could be relied on to use the phone, if the parent could not get back within 15 minutes there is a possibility that he or she might be charged with abandonment.

If a neighbour was there in case of emergency it would certainly be better, but because of the length of time involved it would still be very ill-advised.

Scenario 4:You go out for dinner in a hotel complex on holiday abroad, leaving a child aged 3 and twins aged 18 months in a locked room. You return to check on them every half hour.

If the parents have taken all the risks into account and decided that it is safe to leave the children, this would probably be reasonable. If the children were awake or a bit older and able to wander around, or potentially even to open the door to an intruder, perhaps not. But asleep, with the door locked and people constantly checking up on them, it is likely to be reasonable.

You should be checking on them very regularly. I don’t think it’s any less safe in Continental Europe than it is here. Leaving children alone in this manner is not desirable, but parents have to balance the demands of life and will probably have to consider such issues regularly.

A parent needs to ensure that children are safe if they are left alone. Leaving them for a short while, asleep, in a locked room with regular checks is acceptable. Leaving them for two hours, or with unlocked doors, is not.

MARY ANN SIEGHART: Your children are 20 times more likely to be killed by lightning than to be abducted by a stranger. You are much more likely to get five out of six numbers right in the National Lottery. Yet “It could be you” is the dread thought that all we parents have had since hearing the news that a three-year-old girl had been snatched from her hotel room in an Algarve resort.

How should we react? How protective should we be? The least we can do is try to match our behaviour towards our children with the real – rather than the imagined – risks that they face.

If we were rational, we would make much more fuss about them playing in the park and sheltering under a tree during a storm than talking to strangers. If we were rational, we would be more worried about them dying from a wasp, bee or hornet sting than from a paedophile murder. And we wouldn’t let them anywhere near a bicycle.

In our family, we have always been pretty robust about children’s safety. Our general view is that oversheltering does them no favours.

If they never learn to cross the road as a child, they are more likely to be run over as a teenager. If we don’t teach them to be streetwise, they won’t cope when – and there has to be a when – they are out on their own. For dependent children have to grow up into independent adults. There is no way of avoiding that. The best we can do is to prepare them for independent living. And that means gradually increasing the amount of freedom and responsibility that we give them.

When our elder daughter was 5, we let her walk round the block to the sweet shop. It didn’t involve crossing any roads, and she knew not to walk into the street or to get into a car with a stranger.

Unbeknown to her, my husband followed her the first few times at a distance. She was fine, and was generally rewarded with a free sweetie from the kindly shop owner, which allowed her to learn that other adults outside the family could be trusted to keep an eye on her, too.

By the time our children were 9 and 7 we were letting them go for walks and bike rides (wearing cycle helmets) together in the countryside. They learnt to rely on each other and to take note of their surroundings rather than following a parent blindly.

At 11, our elder daughter was walking to school and back, a mile each way, every day. And last Friday our younger daughter, now 13, made it from Winchester to Norwich on her own, a journey involving four trains and a crossing of London. All this – we hope – will encourage self-confi-dence and self-reliance.

You have to make them aware of the risks and teach them how to deal with them. Both our daughters have been on a self-defence course but, equally, neither is shy of asking a friendly-looking adult (ideally a woman) for help if necessary.

They know that abductions happen but they also understand that the reason why the occasional child-snatching fills so many acres of newsprint is precisely because it is so very, very rare.

Of course we parents all worry about our children. Yet childhood is the safest part of a person’s life and is becoming ever safer. You are least likely to be murdered between the ages of 5 and 16, and if you are, the killer is likely to be someone you know – possibly even your parent.

What is more, child deaths from any cause in this country have more than halved in the past 25 years.
The world isn’t getting more dangerous for them. It’s just that parents are getting more neurotic.

SARAH VINE: I am living proof that it is perfectly safe to leave your children at home alone. From a relatively young age (7 or 8, if memory serves), my parents used to leave my brother and me in the house at night while they popped out for a bite to eat. No harm ever came to us, principally because they always took precautions to make sure that we were fundamentally safe (locked doors and windows, watchful neighbours, etc), but also because, thanks to their trust, I was a sensible little girl.

You might have thought, then, that I would be similarly disposed towards my children. But no. It anything I am even more neurotic than most about leaving them alone. In the evenings, when they are asleep upstairs, I will not even go as far as the bottom of the garden (where I have my home office) for fear that something might happen while I am out of earshot. If I fill up the car with petrol with them in the back, I will drive to the front of the forecourt to pay, just so that I can keep an eye on them.

Ridiculous behaviour, of course, but I cannot seem to help myself. In my defence, both my children are under 4: they are small, trusting and extremely accident-prone. Only the other day I caught my daughter sitting in her Wendy house with a plastic bag “hat” on her head – this despite the fact that all plastic bags in our house are meticulously knotted and put away safely.

But there are other reasons. First, I am older than my parents were when they had me – much older. And the older you get, the more risk-averse you become: too many scare stories, too many chilling news reports (and, it has to be said, a few nasty experiences of my own). They were 21 when they had me: barely out of nappies themselves. I was 36 when I had my daughter: an entirely different proposition. If life teaches you anything, it is that not everybody is as good as they ought to be. I know we are all supposed to rail against our risk-averse society, but when it comes to your children, it’s hard.

There is another factor, too. Being left alone in the house was scary. I never let on to my parents how scary, as I didn’t want to disappoint them. But I was pretty terrified. I would lie in bed, wide awake, listening to the strange noises of the night, analysing every squeak and rustle, until I heard the welcome crunch of their car’s tyres on the driveway – at which point I would finally succumb to sleep.

So I agree: we should not cocoon our children. But nor, by the same token, should we assume that the process of growing up is always an easy one.

VERNON COLEMAN ASKED.. ARE THE MCCANNS GUILTY OF NEGLECT ?

Thousands of people go missing every year but the media doesn't usually bother.

However, the disappearance of a three-year-old British girl from her parents' holiday accommodation in Portugal has become a massive news story.

I suspect that the media has persuaded us that the Drs McCanns deserve our sympathy because they are nice middle class parents and Madeleine is a pretty photogenic child. The fact that there are lots of pictures available helps.

Family and friends have used a compliant media to build the story into a variety of mass hysteria matching that which followed Diana's death.

The disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been considered such a good story that British television has consistently led with it as the main news item for weeks. Most newspapers have kept the story on their front page.

But has this really been the most important news story? For example, on May 17th, one of days that the two week old story of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was considered the most important news item in Britain, here are some of the news stories that were considered less important:

* Gordon Brown was officially announced as Britain's next Prime Minister

* The World Bank met to consider whether or not to get rid of its President Paul Wolfowitz

* The Government announced that it would close a fifth of all Post Offices in the country. (A total of 2,500 villages and communities deprived of their link with the outside world.)

* The Israelis launched air strikes on Palestinians in Gaza

* The British Army and the Government decided that Prince Harry would not serve in Iraq because it was too dangerous for a member of the Royal Family to fight there. (Despite this, Harry decided that he would stay in the army though it was not made clear precisely what he would do.)

* War criminals Tony Blair and George Bush met in the USA to defend their war record. Blair described Bush as a great leader.

* British soldiers continued to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (though without members of the Royal family).

***

When three-year-old Madeleine McCann disappeared she was alone with her younger siblings in a ground floor holiday apartment rented by her parents. They had gone out to dinner.

Let's get this straight.

The Drs McCann didn't have to rush out in an emergency. They could, presumably, have hired a baby sitter. They chose not to. They chose to leave their three very small children in a flat in a foreign country while they went out to have a good time in a restaurant.

What is going on here?

Why haven't the parents been interviewed by social workers?

Is it now legal for British parents to leave their tiny children alone while they go out for fun?

The McCanns left three children alone. The oldest was three-years-old.

The last time I looked, teenage mothers got into trouble if they popped out to the shops to get a pint of milk and a loaf of bread and left their children alone.

Under British law parents can be charged with neglect or abandonment if they leave their children alone if it is unsafe to do so.

It clearly was unsafe to leave these three small children alone. One of them is now missing.

The McCanns chose to go out to have a good time leaving three small children alone in a flat in a foreign country.

These were not impoverished teenagers who didn't know any better. They are thirty-eight-year-old doctors.

What sort of example were they setting?

What sort of example are media commentators who excuse them setting?

Where are the interfering, busy body social workers when they're really needed?

Most media commentators seem to think that the McCanns did nothing wrong. The arguments seem to be that parents must be able to leave their small children alone in the world and that parents are entitled to lead lives without having their children around them all the time.

Huh?

People who become parents take on enormous responsibilities.

Small children are vulnerable. They fall over. They wake up frightened. They see ghosts in shadows. They fall out of bed. They are vulnerable.

Small children are vulnerable.

But society rewards parents in many ways for their decision. And having children is a choice.

If the Drs McCann wanted to have romantic holidays in the Algarve without having their fun evenings spoilt by children they shouldn't have had any children.

(And they could, remember, have hired a baby sitter.)

They chose to have children. And they chose to take them away to Portugal. And they chose to leave them alone while they went out to dinner.

Personally, I'd arrest the pair of them for child neglect.

Whatever happened to Madeleine they must take a huge amount of responsibility.

Personally, I don't think either of them are responsible enough to work as doctors.

Responsible parents don't leave their children alone in a foreign country.

Being a parent is a 24 hour responsibility.




***

The media and the public seem to regard this pair as victims.

But in my view there is only one victim.

Madeleine is the victim.

Whatever has happened to her is clearly awful.

I feel so, so sorry for her.

But the parents?

Sorry, but I just don't think they deserve our sympathy.

The parents have now taken indefinite leave from their jobs.

(I wonder if they're still getting paid for any NHS work they aren't doing? Just a thought.)

They and their family and friends seem to have become media celebrities. Other celebrities are falling over themselves to get involved.

The parents are alleged to be hiring a professional public relations adviser and two London lawyers. A trust is allegedly being set up to handle the money being raised. Why? What the hell is going on?

Why do they need lawyers and a publicity adviser?

And why do they need a trust?

These aren't impoverished people. They are both doctors.

Their combined annual income is probably the best part of £200,000. Personally, I would not be surprised to see the Drs McCann on Celebrity Big Brother next year.

A cynic might say that at least they won't need to bother getting babysitters for whatever children they might have got left by then.

They could just leave 'em at home alone.




Copyright Vernon Coleman 2007

VERNON COLEMAN ASKED WOULD YOU HIRE THE MCCANNS ?

The mystery continues to fascinate the world. Watching the McCann industry at work is like watching a slow motion train wreck.

Friends, relatives, neighbours - everyone now seems to be in on the act. Despite asking for privacy the McCanns seem keen to keep supplying the media with quotes and self-serving information.

But what did happen to the unfortunate three-year-old at the centre of this tragedy?

Here's my summary of the possibilities:

1. A gang sussed out the territory and, knowing that the McCanns were out having dinner, wandered in and `abducted' her. This would probably not have happened, of course, if an adult had been present. Many commentators have played down the responsibility of the parents (`they only did what thousands of other parents do' seemed a popular argument, and one can only assume that a good many people in the media are accustomed to leaving their kids alone and felt guilty about it). But it seems to me that if this is what happened then the parents must bear much of the responsibility. An unemployed 16-year-old mother who left her child alone while she went out for chips would have social workers on her doorstep within minutes. Two doctors ought to know better.

2. A lone paedophile, wandering past, spotted Madeleine, was tempted, snuck in and took her away. This would probably not have happened, of course, if an adult had been present. Once again, the parents must bear much of the responsibility if this is what happened. If they hadn't been out having dinner with friends, Madeleine would now be at home in Leicestershire.

3. Madeleine got up by herself, wandered out of the apartment and somehow disappeared into a hole in the road or the sea. Once again, the parents must bear the responsibility if this is what happened.

4. A parent, hurrying to get ready to go out to dinner, became cross with Madeleine and hit her (or went to hit her). The blow (or intended blow) resulted in Madeleine falling and hitting her head. She died. To avoid trouble with the authorities the accident was covered up. The body was hidden and subsequently buried privately.

5. Madeleine had been playing up. One or both parents decided to give her something to quieten her. A sleeping medicine, perhaps. Madeleine reacted badly and died. To avoid trouble with the authorities (and, possibly, serious trouble with the General Medical Council) the death was covered up. The body was buried privately.

There are several other bizarre possibilities.

But these five are, presumably, the most likely.

Though there must be a real chance that we will never know exactly what happened.

There seems to be some surprise, and dismay, among some sections of the population that the McCanns are being considered as suspects.

Why?

Back in May 2007, when I first wrote about this tragic affair, I pointed out that in most cases where a member of a family disappears the first suspects usually include the closest relatives.

I asked then if the McCanns had ever even been considered as possible suspects in the disappearance of their child. And if not, why not?

Although I am not, of course, for a moment suggesting that they are in any way guilty, I am surprised by the fact that for a long while no one seemed to have regarded the couple as potential suspects. When anyone is murdered the first people usually considered as possible suspects are other members of the family. Exclude those closest first usually seems to be the standard police policy.

But the public and the media seem to be in love with the McCanns. (And they seem to me to have taken to the cameras with some enthusiasm.)

Meanwhile, the number of things that confuse me continue to grow.

Why don't the McCanns go back to work? They wouldn't be the first parents to have to return to work after a tragedy.

Work would provide some distraction from the tragedy (a good thing) and it would enable them to earn some money for their legal fees (another good thing). It would also encourage the media to back off a little. (And it would give the McCanns a good reason to demand that the media do back off.)

The longer the circus continues the more difficult it will be for the family ever to have a normal life again. In my view it won't be long before their fame will make the McCanns unemployable as doctors.

Some of the other media stunts seemed to me to be intended to attract publicity to the parents rather than to the cause.

Did Gerry really have to whizz off to America?

How and why did Gordon Brown get involved?

How was the Pope ever going to help find Madeleine?

To be frank, some of the stuff I've read sound more like political spin than the heartfelt cries of grieving parents.

And why don't the family and friends all shut up?

They may think they are helping but I can't see that they are. Many of the comments seem to me to just stir things up - and attract attention to the McCanns.

If the McCanns really want to be private then they should keep their heads down - and tell their relatives to go back to their own lives.

The media (and a large section of the public) seem to regard the McCanns as victims - and deserving of our sympathy and support.

I wonder if I'm the only person to have found the McCanns to be a rather unappealing pair?

And the strange thing is that the more I see of them the more I dislike and distrust them.

Perhaps that's just me...but here's a question for you: Would you hire the McCanns as babysitters?




Copyright Vernon Coleman September 2007