Hello All.
Thank you all for taking the time to look at my site.
I have been considering making another site Dedicated to Missing children in general, what do you all think!.
I would like your opinions please, you can let me know by E-Mail or mention it In (My Guestbook)
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kelvin
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER FOR MADELEINE & ALL MISSING CHILDREN
You are invited to join the Madeleine Prayer Circle (Please click on the Blue link below)
LINK TO: PRAYER SITE in a day of prayer for Madeleine McCann and all missing children.
The third International Day of Prayer will be held on Friday 5th December, 2008.
Please pass this invitation on to your church, prayer group, colleagues and friends around the world.
We are expecting 20,000 people worldwide to be praying together on this day for these missing children ……please join us!.....it would be incredibly powerful!
(please see) john wearne www.musicdownloadrevolution.com incorp, madeleine prayer circle
PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE, I CAN NOT BELEAVE IT AFTER WHAT HAPPENED TO MADELEINE McCann
Girl taken into care after mother abandons her on holiday in Portugal
An eight-year-old British girl has been taken into care by Portuguese authorities after her mother reportedly left her to go out drinking a few miles away from where Madeleine McCann went missing.
By Jessica Salter
Neighbours called police claiming that the girl had been abandoned several times on the holiday in Portimao.
When the mother did not return home, officers took the girl to a temporary care home in nearby Faro.
After being assessed she was transferred to Loule, where she is still staying.
Portimao is just 25 miles away from Praia da Luz, the holiday spot where Madeleine vanished from over a year ago while her parents were out having dinner with friends.
The town was the base for police investigating the three-year-old's disappearance.
The girl's mother is reported to have gone out drinking in the town, leaving her daughter alone in their holiday apartment.
A spokeswoman for the British consulate in Portugal confirmed that the girl had been taken into Portuguese care.
She said: "We know about this case of the eight-year-old girl and mother who are in trouble and our consulate in the Algarve is assisting them."
The offence of abandonment carries a maximum 10-year jail sentence in Portugal, but the consulate could not confirm whether the mother faces charges.
In May three British children were taken into protective custody after their parents allegedly fell into a drunken stupor while on holiday in the Algarve.
Eamon and Antoinette McGuckin denied the claims, saying that they had been overcome by the heat.
They fled back to Northern Ireland before they were due to appear in a Portuguese court.
Extract From: Telegraph.co.uk
Hush little baby, don’t say a word
By Kate Leaver - posted Monday, 25 August 2008
If it is our biological imperative to make babies, it is our most basic instinct to protect them. Baby-makers and baby-carers everywhere know what a challenge it can be to shelter a tiny human being from the dangers of the world ... from the cold, the rain, the sun, the road. Sharp objects, moving vehicles, heights, fire. Hairdryers in the bath, knives in the toaster, fingers in the electric socket. Things they could fall off, fall into, have fall on them.
How will we know where Baby is all the time, without eyes in the backs of our heads? How do we stop Baby falling from a great height in a flaming vehicle? How could we live with ourselves if we left Baby alone long enough to take the hairdryer swimming in the rain?
What happens when we have to protect Baby from ourselves?
When the whisper of pedophilia is enough to start a witch hunt and the prospect of abduction is ever-present in the news, it’s no longer just about Baby. It’s about warding off the panic and the hype of parenthood. It’s about knowing that phantom kidnappers don’t make regular visits to your neighbourhood. It’s about teaching your child early how to think for themselves. It’s about somehow debunking sensational news stories.
It is no wonder that abductions of children, cases of sexual abuse and gross negligence are given such priority on News/Current Affairs programs. They offend our most sacred moral standard; to protect children. We watch stories about helpless parents so we can indulge our own fears. This vicarious vulnerability is exacerbated by the knowledge that we can secure any of our other assets, but not our offspring. There are security systems to protect cars, pets, houses, buildings, phones and computers but the chilling absence of any mechanism to protect our children breeds paranoia among parents. Parental paranoia feeds into media panic - and there begins the cycle of public fear.
Madeleine McCann, who disappeared over a year ago in Portugal while her parents were having dinner nearby, has had unprecedented media attention. For the duration of her case, newspapers have affectionately referred to Madeleine as “Maddie”, despite being told by her father that family and friends had never used this nickname; clearly a device to make her more familiar to us.
Pretty, blonde and fine-boned, “Maddie” was presented as the every-child to appeal to the universal fear of losing a child. The story ceased to be about one girl; it became about good and evil, parenting skills, childhood vulnerability, babysitting, Portuguese tapas, truth and grief.
“Our Maddie” is emblematic of the fear that pervades the Western psyche and the media’s propensity to play into it. Her parents have made a website complete with daily blogs, links to donate money and a timer to count how many days she has been missing. British tabloid papers have paid the McCann’s $60,000 compensation for accusing them of killing their own child. Busloads of tourists have arrived in Portugal to see the places where Maddie slept and where her parents ate.
Very little thought seems to have gone into the effects that such attention might have on Maddie’s siblings, Maddie’s friends and any child who watches her on the news.
Consider Madeleine McCann herself, whose angelic face has been seen by anyone who has watched TV, read a paper or been on the Internet in the last year, whose parents have been accused of her murder and whose trauma has been exposed for all to see. If she were to be found, she would grow up a morbid kind of celebrity whose personal horror held the world captive during her formative toddler years.
Media coverage of the “Maddie” case has misrepresented the significance of the story and implicitly suggested that foreign abduction is a perennial concern. This is a terrifying notion for parents, but because of their underdeveloped grasp of empathy children have far more difficulty in qualifying that kidnapping is not an ever-present threat.
Similarly, how are children to know that babies are not left by dumpsters, killed by their axe-wielding grand-fathers or gassed to death in a car with their brothers and father every day?
These stories appear prominently in the news because they are terrifying anomalies to everyday existence, not because they reflect normal social behaviour. How are children growing up in a world saturated by reports on disaster expected to recognise that the news is not a daily sample of what could happen to them?
As Jeanne Brooks-Gunn points out, children are more likely to be kidnapped by someone they know than a stranger, yet the disproportionate media attention given to the case of missing Madeleine directs people’s anxiety towards the unidentified assailant. There’s a “Where’s Wally” mentality, along with public fantasies about the heroism and excitement of being the one to find Madeleine.
Global sympathy has rallied people together in a bid to combat the “evil” that mysterious men who steal children represent. It creates a happy spectrum; pedophilia and abduction at one end, middle-class suburban normality at the other.
“Heavy exposure to major catastrophes in the news is associated with intense fear and even post-traumatic stress in children”, says academic Barbara Wilson. Children are known to identify strongly with characters like them in their favourite television shows, but we can hush their crying because it’s only make-believe. What comfort can we give them then when children on the news are only ever in accidents, hurt, stolen, sick or in danger?
Children have long been typecast as sinners or victims in the news, and very rarely have they been able to speak for themselves on the matter at hand. Clearly children who have not yet learned to speak are exempt, but otherwise there is no universally cogent reason for young people to be silenced when their pictures, families and experiences are used in print or film. If, as Wilson says “media can contribute to long-term fear through its influence on conceptions of social reality”, then what sort of reality are we providing for our children; a reality in which children are abused but not heard from?
Professor George Gerbner said that “disproportionate preoccupation with victims in an underrepresented population diminishes and degrades that group”.
All humans are entitled to the same dignity, but somehow this basic principle evades the way we structure our news services. Documentaries frequently feature underage Thai women, child prostitutes or victims of abuse without any attempt to censor their identity. Young people are used as walking symbols of a larger social problem, with no respect for the fact that they too are people and are entitled to their privacy. If we are shown again and again that young people are voiceless victims, we not only become more protective but more dismissive of their rights.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) enshrines children’s right “to freedom of expression and to protection of privacy and attacks against their honour and reputation”. Just this month there was an article about a man charged for sexual assault who insisted that further DNA testing would prove his innocence. (There is no sense in repeating the names of anyone involved, for that would only build on the defamation committed). The story all too rapidly segued from a plea for innocence to a detailed discussion of semen stains on the underwear of the six-year-old young girl, which constitutes a gross and wildly unnecessary invasion of her privacy.
The article detailed the size, shape, state of decay since the crime took place and other vaginal liquids that might have been on the fabric of the underwear. It concluded by suggesting the girl could have been lying. There was no honour; there was no dignity in this article. Why wasn’t the girl approached for her version of the story? Why wasn’t she asked if she minded that the contents of her underwear were publicly discussed? She probably wasn’t even aware that she could object to this kind of intimate disclosure.
An article like this is written by someone posing as the voice of justice and all the while employing the same disregard for a child’s right to privacy that he condemns. Why wasn’t there a Bill Henson-scale protest to the publication of this information? Where are the outraged parents and politicians when children’s privacy is surreptitiously undermined like this, or systematically ignored?
The solution seems to be to make news “adult-only” viewing or to somehow dilute the darker events of the world for children, until they can psychologically digest it properly. But this would not address the remaining scorcher of an issue; that children have no voice in the news.
If we delineate between children and adults in terms of recreational magazines (Kidz Zone v Vogue or The Economist), it follows that there should be a market for news from all ages. Children should be in the news - as sources, authors and witnesses. They should be interviewed on things that concern them, but not as a novelty. Rather than having children’s perspectives appear in different news beats why not appoint special children’s correspondents? They could be trained to deal with children sensitively and function as a messenger between children and the media.
Childcare worker Kelly Royds has introduced an interactive learning site called Short Reporters (only accesible to staff and students), which allows interested children at North Newtown Primary to contribute everything from jokes and articles to pictures of SpongeBob SquarePants.
“The aim of the online network is to provide children with a safe and supervised space in which they can share ideas, upload writing and talk about the media” says Royds. “At the moment the Short Reporters are writing critical reviews about why they don’t like Hannah Montana and Dora the Explorer, so they’re beginning to think about the media in a more critical way.” Here children are writing for children - if only we could extend this so they were heard by adults too.
So often there is outrage about the sexualisation of children, the violence in video games and the Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen-inspired trend towards materialism. As soon as Baby develops speech and shows some sign of engaging with the world, parents lather themselves into a panic about any form of media informing their lives. “Objectification!” they cry, “Contamination of young minds!” What they must realise is that “media” (as synonymous with “culture” or “entertainment”) is far too big to bring down with protests about content or social trends.
As technology gets fancier, media is only going to gain momentum - so the most viable option we have is to equip children with the skills to deconstruct media messages. If we cannot hide our children from the media, we may as well teach them to understand it properly and then let them loose on it.
If only we could credit children with being intelligent enough to comment on news stories, to know the difference between right and wrong, fact and fantasy. Perhaps then we may not only realise that it is necessary and just for children to participate actively in news stories, but that often their perspective is clearer and savvier than our own.
Extract From: The National Forum
A small price for the press to pay for irresponsible behaviour
Eleven newspapers libelled Robert Murat.
Unfortunately, it will take more than a £50,000 penalty to deter them in future Robert Murat's libel settlement is hardly a surprise.
Newspapers did overstep the mark in their reporting and, given the award to the McCanns in March, the outcome was entirely predictable.
The reason for the capitulation of 11 newspapers before the case reached court are very clear.
All have very expensive legal teams and were advised by their separate batteries of lawyers that they had no hope of winning.
Indeed, they might well end up paying out much more in terms of legal fees and, more tentatively, might also suffer from a loss of credibility among their audiences too (not that the credibility of most of the 11 is that high anyway).
The facts of the matter are unarguable.
Murat was libelled. Not once, but many times over.
Scores of reports, and many headlines too, defamed him. Like Kate and Gerry McCann, he was often treated not as a suspect by papers but as a culprit. But these papers know the rules.
So why did they get it so wrong? How did they fall into the trap of publishing so many wild and inaccurate stories in the aftermath of Madeleine McCann's disappearance? I think there are three clear reasons.
First, it happened overseas. Editors and reporters appeared to think that the overriding rule – the one based on that long-held British judicial precedent that regards everyone as innocent until proven guilty – was no longer relevant because it was a Portuguese case.
Second, the level of competition among all these newspapers meant that they outbid each other in an attempt to attract readers by printing ever more lurid allegations against the people supposedly connected to the girl's disappearance.
Many of the stories, culled from anonymous sources (and, quite possibly, no sources at all) were utterly irresponsible and, most certainly, unprovable.
Papers were also competing against 24-hour news on TV and radio.
Therefore they felt under pressure to get new angles on a story which has only ever had a couple of facts: a child vanished; the police named one man as a suspect – on the thinnest of evidence; the police later named the McCanns as suspects.
Everything else was speculation.
Third, and this goes to the heart of the problem, these papers have been pushing at the boundaries of the British contempt rule for years.
More is published about British crime suspects in advance of their being charged (and sometimes afterwards) than was ever the case 20 years ago.
Why? Because they have got away with it.
In very, very rare cases only have papers suffered for breaking the rules.
Some judges have asked attorney-generals to take a lot at certain cases, but nothing has come of it.
The papers, standing by their claim to act in the greater public interest, have gradually began to publish clearly prejudicial material prior to trials.
Will the McCann and Murat cases give them pause for thought? I doubt it because the punishment is so little compared to the rewards of adding to, or maintaining, readerships in a period of prolonged sales decline.
The 11 papers are being forced to pay out £550,000 between them – a little over £50,000 apiece - and that may seem like a small price to pay in order to continue their lawless activities while, of course, telling their readers that politicians are responsible for the (allegedly) awful state of law and order in Britain.
Extract From: Guardian.co.uk
EU PUSHES FOR BLOC-WIDE KIDNAP ALERT
By CONSTANT BRAND
CANNES, France (AP) — A European Union official called on justice ministers of the 27 member nations Tuesday to agree on plans for a bloc-wide early warning system to report missing children.
Under the EU alert network plan drafted last year, based on the U.S. "Amber Alert" system, policing authorities would work to make their national networks more compatible to improve cross-border searches.
Police and justice officials could use a hot line system to raise a public alarm when a child is believed to have been taken to another country in the bloc.
Television, radio and highway signs can be used to announce names or show pictures of missing children.
The only nations to have signed up so far are France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Portugal and Greece.
Jacques Barrot, the EU's justice and home affairs commissioner, appealed to the ministers at two-day talks in Cannes, France, to put the guidelines in place.
He wants the entire bloc to adopt the plan by next year.
"The effectiveness of this system has been proven, because missing children are found more quickly," Barrot said. French Justice Minister Rachida Dati, chairing Tuesday's meeting, presented the ministers with a video to show the effectiveness of a Europe-wide child alert system.
Many EU nations have hesitated to join up.
Germany has said such a plan is unnecessary and that statistics show that in most cases missing children turn up after a few days.
But German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries says her country could now accept the plan if it were on a case by case basis.
"The alarm shall only be activated if there is evidence for real necessity.
But there won't be strict rules," Zypries said. She said figures show that most children are found within two days and had not been kidnapped.
Other EU nations have not put in place special police units that can communicate with other European counterparts about abductions — a key requirement for a European alert network.
The plan has the backing of the parents of missing British girl Madeleine McCann, who supported calls for an alert network and a hot line to report missing children.
Madeleine disappeared from a Portuguese resort in May 2007, and her case has attracted international media attention.
Thousands of children disappear in the EU every year.
In Belgium, 3,600 children went missing in 2006, including runaways, abductions and cases of sexual abuse.
In France, 45,000 cases of child disappearances were registered in the same year, according to Missing Children Europe
Extract From: The Associated Press
Madeleine case every parents' nightmare
By Michael Lavery Thursday June 26 2008
PARENTS are more worried than ever about child security on holidays this year.
A survey just released by stickyfingerstravel.com, which claims to be Ireland's only "family friendly travel website," reveals that 81pc of respondent parents were more concerned about safety on holidays this year following the disappearance of Madeline McCann last year.
Tara Cosgrove, editor of stickyfingerstravel.com, said: "The disappearance of Madeline McCann was a terrible tragedy and our survey shows that it has led parents to rethink their approach to child safety and security on holidays.
TIPS "A responsible approach and some simple commonsense safety precautions mean both you and the children can have a great holiday," she added.
The website offered tips to keep children safe and secure on holidays this year:
1: When packing your travel documents bring two recent photos of your children with you (one in your bag and one with your travel documents).
This way if you get separated from your child you can show people quickly what they look like.
2: If you are considering using a kids club while on holidays you should check carefully both before you go and while on site that standards are as you would expect, that the club is properly run and that you are happy with all arrangements.
Check sign in and out procedures.
3: Never leave young children alone at night.
There are not only the risks of someone entering the property (very rare) but the issue of dangers such as a fire or the child going wandering or deciding to have a bath.
Babysitting is available in most properties or if you are with friends maybe try to eat in or alternating going out if cost or availability is an issue.
4: Be very aware of the dangers of water and never assume that a lifeguard or someone else will be as good at looking after your own child as you.
Set some ground rules with the kids as to what they can and cannot do in the pool or at the beach.
5: Be responsible when it comes to alcohol if the kids are out with you in the evening and take turns in having a few drinks if necessary.
For more information on the topic, visit www.stickyfingerstravel.com
Extract from: Herald.ie 2008
Extract: Truth about Maddie McCann
Article from: The Daily Telegraph By Danny Collins June 07, 2008 12:00am
IN this extract from Vanished, a book by Danny Collins, the Madeleine McCann mystery is again under the spotlight.
Residents from the resort also joined in the hunt, set in motion by Judicial Police Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral, fresh in from Faro.
One such resident was Anglo-Portuguese real estate agent Robert Murat, 34 and divorced, who lived with his 71-year-old mother, Jennifer, in a villa not 150m from the Praia da Luz apartment where Madeleine disappeared.
As a bilingual expat, Murat often worked for local police as a translator in cases involving English-speaking tourists.
In fact, it would later be revealed that he had acted in the role of interpreter for the Portuguese police during their questioning of two of the McCanns' dinner companions, now dubbed the "Tapas Seven'' by the ever-epigraphic UK press.
Journalists at the scene reported Murat's obvious desire to help, even admitting to being slightly overwhelmed by his passionate interest in the case.
Some even remarked on his constant presence at the compromised crime scene, where he was often observed to be engaging officers in conversation inside the apartment of 5A.
Meanwhile, the search of the surrounding countryside went on, the investigation fuelled by reported sightings of cars and strangers, the latter always acting suspiciously, near the apartment on the night Madeleine went missing.
Interestingly, some of those sightings were reported in statements taken from four of the McCanns' companions.
Mystery surrounds Robert Murat's whereabouts on the night Madeleine went missing.
He insisted to police that he remained in Casa Liliana, the villa owned by his mother, all that evening.
But there were those who would dispute his story.
Certainly, three of the "Tapas Seven'' - Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien - were confronted with Murat during a police interview on May 11 and all of them identified him as the man they saw hanging around the McCann apartment between 10.30pm and 11pm. Murat's girlfriend, Michaela Walczuch, 32, also came under fire from various witnesses.
A Portuguese lorry driver told investigators he saw her driving a hire car on a road near the town of Silves, 40km from the coastal village of Praia da Luz, on May 5, when he also witnessed her hand over a child (whom he believed to be Madeleine McCann) wrapped in a blanket to a man in a black car.
The sighting of Madeleine in Morocco on June 15 also identifies Walczuch as being nearby, moments after a child resembling Madeleine was seen with a woman in a Muslim headscarf.
Walczuch herself is adamant these sightings are all untrue, claiming that on June 15 she was in conference with Murat and his lawyer, Francisco Pagarete.
Further reported sightings of Murat on the night of May 3 followed. Dr Payne and Mrs Oldfield claim they again saw him at the Ocean Club complex as late as 11.45pm.
Another of the McCanns' holidaying group, Russell O'Brien, also recalls seeing the man with dark wavy hair and a distinctive lazy eye at the complex that night, with his statement allegedly confirmed by a Mark Warner resort employee, now identified as child-minder Charlotte Pennington.
As late as the end of December 2007, reports of sightings of Robert Murat near the McCanns' apartment on that fateful night continued to arrive at the Judicial Police HQ in Portimao, when two British tourists who holidayed in Praia da Luz in May, 2007 reported they had told the Leicester police of seeing Robert Murat near the Ocean Club complex at 10.30pm, half an hour after Mrs McCann raised the alarm that her daughter was missing.
Even more ominous was their recollection of seeing two men, who appeared to be watching the area from the window of an unoccupied apartment, overlooking the tapas bar, in the days before Madeleine vanished.
It should be noted that there was no reason whatsoever why Robert Murat shouldn't have been among members of the public gathered near apartment 5A after Madeleine McCann was reported missing.
Indeed, given his role as part-time police interpreter, this was even more likely.
However, the die was already cast and Murat was given the status of arguido (declared person of interest) in May.
Eight reports placed him at the crime scene on May 3, 2007.
His mother, Jennifer, still supports his alibi of a quiet evening spent at home in her company.
Murat himself claims he knew nothing of Madeleine's disappearance until he received a telephone call from his sister in England the following morning.
Should Robert Murat have been in the area of the complex that night? Strangely, in the face of his many protests, there is no reason why not - he was often employed by the local police as an interpreter and it would seem likely that, having heard of the tragedy (Praia da Luz is, after all, a small village), he might have made his way to the complex to see if his services were required.
Why should he, then, go to such pains to deny that he ever left Casa Liliana?
Having produced no positive results, searches were halted on May 11.
Meanwhile, police examined photographs taken by holidaymakers in the hunt for identifiable suspects, although no clear motive for taking the child had been put forward.
At this time, under area chief Goncalo Amaral, the Judicial Police (the equivalent of the UK's CID) were pursuing two theories and relevant lines of investigation: abduction by an international pedophile network, or by an illegal adoptions agency and the involvement of Gerry and Kate McCann.
What seems to have been overlooked at that time, by the star-struck Portuguese police, was the possibility that Madeleine might have been taken by a local intruder in a crime of opportunity, not linked in any way to the international kidnapping scene.
It is difficult to imagine why international criminal operatives - if they were planning to kidnap a child, for a wealthy sponsor in some far-off country - should choose Praia da Luz as their base of operations, unless a local had told them of a child ripe for kidnapping because of the observed lack of security, which would have called for a large number of events to have occurred over a short period of time.
Nevertheless, for an organised group to do so in the low holiday season makes it even more unlikely.
Equally, the small Algarve resort would have been an unattractive venue for international pedophiles, who would have been far more likely to prowl the soon-to-be crowded resorts of Spain's nearby costas than to chance the slim pickings on offer in Portugal in early May.
Self-confessed pedophiles to whom I talked while researching this book - an investigative journalist's lot is not always a happy one - also spoke deprecatingly of the idea of kidnapping a three-year-old for morbid sexual practices, pointing out that such a small child would only appeal to a limited few (shades here of Dr Hort's regression theory) and would have no value in the perverted marketplace of commercial pedophilia.
Again, a more likely possibility is that Madeleine left the apartment of her own accord by the route left open to her and from there begins the mystery of her fate.
However, the Portuguese investigators were moving in an entirely different and far less logical direction.
If you have any comments please visit (My Guestbook)
