Right or Wrong?

[Churchill]

Prosecute 'em I say.

They were directly responsible for the loss of their child.

[WotNxt]

"
Please look at this link and think about the accuracy and relevance of your comments: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6644615.stm"

OK looked at it. So if they had been with their kids, would their daughter have been taken. NO. They went out and left their kids. That action was what put their daughter in danger. There are no two ways about it. If they stayed with their kids then they would still have 3. They have to take some responsibility for their actions.

Had it been their car, left unlocked on a street which got nicked, whose fault would that have been? Yes the theif was responsible for nicking it, but their action made it a sh1t load easier to do.

As parents there are times when we knowingly or unknowingly put our kids in danger.

How many kids are killed in road traffic accidents just because they were in the car and their parents were driving. Should those parents be prosecuted for putting their kids in danger by carrying them as passengers in a car?

What was more likely: Maddy to be taken or a child to die in a car crash with their parents driving? In my opinion, on balance, the latter is more likely.

I think you are right in what you are saying but you have just taken a reactionary and unrealistic viewpoint on it. I suspect this is due to some kind of class-envy but tell me if I am wrong.

[richard-af]

From what I have read the apartment ...

Agreed - but we Brits LOVE to hate, don't we?

[WotNxt]

Agreed - but we Brits LOVE to hate, don't we?

Yeah, I particularly love to hate those who love to hate.

[Churchill]

Yeah, I particularly love to hate those who love to hate.

I disagree! I love to love !!!

[smee.again]

I disagree! I love to love !!!

So did ABBA...apparently!!!

[Moscow Mule]

They were directly responsible for the loss of their child.

<pedant>
No, the kidnapper/murderer is DIRECTLY responsible.

They are indirectly responsible as they didn't abduct the child themselves.
Unless they have some David Copperfield-esque magical skills.

</pedant>

[BoredBloke]

It's nothing to do with class envy or anything. It comes down to the simple fact that if they had not left them alone they would still have 3 kids.

As I said, if you leave your car unlocked and somebody nicks it or its contents to you apportion any blame to yourself for not securing your car. I know I would. Yes they have lost a huge amount, but that loss does not excuse the fact that they were partially to blame. Let me hazard a guess, were there other families there? Yes. Did those other families have kids? Probably yes. Why was it this family who had a child snatched? Probably because the parents were not there to stop it happen. I presume that the person taking the child would look for the easiest prospect. How much easier could they have made it to leave 3 very young children alone, asleep in an unlocked building.

[Churchill]

<pedant>
No, the kidnapper/murderer is DIRECTLY responsible.

They are indirectly responsible as they didn't abduct the child themselves.
Unless they have some David Copperfield-esque magical skills.

</pedant>

If they hadn't left the kids alone...

The Police will push for the maximum sentence if you are involved in a motoring accident while driving under the influence of alchohol or drugs simply because you shouldn't have been behind the wheel!!! If you hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened!

This is exactly the same scenario. If the parenst hadn't left the kids alone then the girl wouldn't have been kidnapped.

Instead of blaming others, they should be accepting responsibility for their actions.

Simple as.

End of.

[WotNxt]

It's nothing to do with class envy or anything.

OK

It comes down to the simple fact that if they had not left them alone they would still have 3 kids.

Perhaps, we will never know, but it is a reasonable assumption.

As I said, if you leave your car unlocked and somebody nicks it or its contents to you apportion any blame to yourself for not securing your car. I know I would.

Agreed, but this is because we have scumbags in society who should be locked up. We should be able to leave everything unlocked without fear but unfortunately human nature leads to criminal behaviour that we have to make allowances for. However, that does not mean it is your fault, it is still the fault of the criminal for carrying out the criminal act.

Yes they have lost a huge amount, but that loss does not excuse the fact that they were partially to blame.

Of course it doesn't excuse them anything. I just don't think there is anything they have to be excused apart from to themselves - and I doubt they will ever really manage to do that.

Let me hazard a guess, were there other families there? Yes. Did those other families have kids? Probably yes. Why was it this family who had a child snatched? Probably because the parents were not there to stop it happen.

This is complete conjecture. Are you also saying that the blind or people in wheelchairs only have themselves to blame if they get mugged because they are easy targets?

I presume that the person taking the child would look for the easiest prospect.

A natural assumption but still conjecture. The abductor may have targetted that little girl in particular for a number of reasons.

How much easier could they have made it to leave 3 very young children alone, asleep in an unlocked building.

The reports are that the apartment WAS LOCKED.