Madeleine McCann

[Ban-jani]

You missed out a rather important part of the question here because you are relying purely on subjectivism. The question should be reformed as:

Did they probably feel it was perfectly safe, and ought they to have felt it was perfectly safe?

It is less certain to say yes to this given the facts of the case (~70m away, unlocked door, obscured view- whether by darkness, foliage, the plastic window- no sight whatsoever of several entry points to the property, chose not to use the night creche) and that is why most of the debate in this thread has been generated by the fundamental point of the standard of fiduciary duty that a parent should have for their child.

Ultimately, jail time for neglect doesn't help the two remaining children (as I highly doubt they'd leave their children in such circumstances again), but to suggest, as they have inferred in several interviews that these actions are perfectly reasonable and constitute the expected standard of fiduciary duty is, for many, a claim too far.

Very good point.

My main argument on the situation they found themselves in was where they were.

I obviously cannot know this but I’d guess that they wouldn’t have done the same in a major city or even a built up town, if they were away for a city break.

I think because of how relaxed, quiet, family focused and because of their being zero crime in the resort - they felt more comfortable doing something a parent wouldn’t necessarily do elsehwere.

They ought to not have felt safe enough as they paid the ultimate price but the question on whether it was reasonable or not can only be answered by people who have been in a similar circumstance or were there at the time.

What I mean by this is that being in the situation yourself allows to gauge the atmosphere in the resort/area and the type of people you come across on a daily basis.

I said in my opening post on this thread they didn’t do anything wrong, I do take that back somewhat, they obviously could have done more, I just don’t believe their mistakes are guilty of gross negligence.

 

[Dr.Faustus]

Very good point.

My main argument on the situation they found themselves in was where they were.

I obviously cannot know this but I’d guess that they wouldn’t have done the same in a major city or even a built up town, if they were away for a city break.

I think because of how relaxed, quiet, family focused and because of their being zero crime in the resort - they felt more comfortable doing something a parent wouldn’t necessarily do elsehwere.

They ought to not have felt safe enough as they paid the ultimate price but the question on whether it was reasonable or not can only be answered by people who have been in a similar circumstance or were there at the time.

What I mean by this is that being in the situation yourself allows to gauge the atmosphere in the resort/area and the type of people you come across on a daily basis.

I said in my opening post on this thread they didn’t do anything wrong, I do take that back somewhat, they obviously could have done more, I just don’t believe their mistakes are guilty of gross negligence.

The standard of fiduciary duty that a parent should have to their child is not consequentialist (in this case the consequence of abduction)- though most breaches come to light in this manner- but absolutist (the affect is the same whether a consequence occurs or not). Whether is was "reasonable" to feel that they ought to have felt it was perfectly safe in consideration of all of the circumstances should be the frame of the debate around the negligent or non-negligent actions. I would add that it is absolutely not the case that the standard should be only a burden of relativism "can only be answered by people who have been in similar circumstances" as otherwise pretty much any behaviour can be normalised.

 

[Ban-jani]

The standard of fiduciary duty that a parent should have to their child is not consequentialist (in this case the consequence of abduction)- though most breaches come to light in this manner- but absolutist (the affect is the same whether a consequence occurs or not). Whether is was "reasonable" to feel that they ought to have felt it was perfectly safe in consideration of all of the circumstances should be the frame of the debate around the negligent or non-negligent actions. I would add that it is absolutely not the case that the standard should be only a burden of relativism "can only be answered by people who have been in similar circumstances" as otherwise pretty much any behaviour can be normalised.

I completely appreciate the first part of your post. Children do get abducted all of the time whilst parents are behaving more than responsibly and the case we’re actually discussing negligence whilst in this particular case, probably highlights there’s a problem somewhere - it’s just how much of a problem you and I see.

Maybe it shouldn’t and I certainly wouldn’t advocate it in any given behaviour, however when deciding upon the safety levels of an area, specifically a holiday resort, those that have spent near enough a week there, will have a far better understanding than you or I.

 

[Dr.Faustus]

I completely appreciate the first part of your post. Children do get abducted all of the time whilst parents are behaving more than responsibly and the case we’re actually discussing negligence whilst in this particular case, probably highlights there’s a problem somewhere - it’s just how much of a problem you and I see.

Maybe it shouldn’t and I certainly wouldn’t advocate it in any given behaviour, however when deciding upon the safety levels of an area, specifically a holiday resort, those that have spent near enough a week there, will have a far better understanding than you or I.

I think I understand your second point better after this post; do you mean to provide context to the assessment of safety? If so, on this we can agree.

I would still contend however that there are certain actions which expose children, in breach of a parental fiduciary duty, to an unacceptable level of risk in spite of the surrounding environment- i.e. that no risk assessment of the safety levels of the surrounding area could explain a decision to act in particular way as rationally in the interests of the child.

I still maintain it is certainly debatable here, as the level of risk given the circumstances did not only extend to abduction (a rare event), but escape, injury in absence of supervision etc.

 

[Fame Monster]

A duty to act in the best interests of another.

The overarching point I was trying to make was that merely stating they felt it was perfectly safe isn't enough- I think many would state that they ought not to have felt that way given the circumstances.

That they acted in the best interests of their children is, even to the staunchest of defenders, questionable given the circumstances of the case.

No problem mate. I was being a bit pedantic. From my experience, fiduciary duty has quite a narrow legal/financial meaning that I wouldn't normally use to describe the relationship between a parent and child but I understand what you mean.

 

[Dr.Faustus]

No problem mate. I was being a bit pedantic. From my experience, fiduciary duty has quite a narrow legal/financial meaning that I wouldn't normally use to describe the relationship between a parent and child but I understand what you mean.

In purely legal terms it is used in both domains- in legislation and case law (i.e. a financial relationship and the relationship between a parent and child (non financial- duty of care)).

 

[york away to this!]

I wish it was.
The window was ruled out as an entry point into the apartment pretty much within 24 hours of the investigation by everyman & his dog.
The local police ruled it out.
The british police in the dispatches documentary ruled it out
Nearly everyone ruled it out.
Even the McCanns rolled back their original their original opinions on it, then tried suggesting it was the actual way the abductor got out of the apartment with Madeline.

Now according Ban-jani every expert in the Netflix documentary is saying that's how they got in, against all conventional wisdom and the accepted truth at the time

This obsession with the window is making me glaze over...

 

[Stoned Rose]

Incredible isn't it.

A family holiday for me sees a lot of time together in the day. Water parks. Walks. Crazy fucking golf. Whatever works. Kids back by 6, food if we haven't stayed out, then bed.

Mum and dad time post that consists of sitting on the balcony with the apartment very much locked.

To me, and to 99.9% of western civilisation, that is absolutely normal.

Unfortunately we have 2 fucking half wits on this board who just have to be different.

Hey ho, there's always one.

And sometimes 2 ;)

 

[2sheikhs]

I thought a fiduciary was where ants live.

 

[Stoned Rose]

The standard of fiduciary duty that a parent should have to their child is not consequentialist (in this case the consequence of abduction)- though most breaches come to light in this manner- but absolutist (the affect is the same whether a consequence occurs or not). Whether is was "reasonable" to feel that they ought to have felt it was perfectly safe in consideration of all of the circumstances should be the frame of the debate around the negligent or non-negligent actions. I would add that it is absolutely not the case that the standard should be only a burden of relativism "can only be answered by people who have been in similar circumstances" as otherwise pretty much any behaviour can be normalised.

I await his response to this one with some trepidation.