Right or Wrong?

[BoredBloke]

"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'm not saying that at all. But that is the person putting themself in danger. Their actions put their kids in danger. A mugger is not going to mug a group of lads, he is going to get the person who he feels is an easy target and where he has the highest chances of success. In the same way the person who abducted this kid would have gone for the one which he thought he could easily get away with. Since her parents were not on the scene, his job was made that much easier. Think of it this way, how many houses get burgled when the occupants are in compared to when they are not. Why are more houses burgled when the occupants are not in? Because the chances of success are better.

[WotNxt]

Think of it this way, how many houses get burgled when the occupants are in compared to when they are not. Why are more houses burgled when the occupants are not in? Because the chances of success are better.

To take the analogy further, those with something very valuable in their house which they show in public everyday and that others may develop a huge desire for, are perhaps more likely to be burgled. Yes, the crims will pick an opportune time to increase their chances of success.

The point I am trying to make is that perhaps this little girl was targetted for some reason. Maybe because she was blond, pretty (stolen to order) or maybe because some sick twisted pervert "fancied" her and not some other kids. If the parents are rich enough then maybe it was a kidnap for ransom plot that went wrong.

So if you have a nice expensive car that you drive about town in most days then is it your fault if it gets stolen from your LOCKED garage when you go pop to a neighbour's house across the street for a chat for half an hour?

Perhaps you should have kept it in the garage and never let anyone know you had it. Or perhaps covered it with the car equivalent of a burka when driving it so noone knew how nice it was and so weren't tempted to steal it?

Which leads me back to my other point which is that the criminals are to blame and not us. Yes there are degrees of caution that we excercise and cars can be replaced by insurance although people cannot be replaced.

I believe the McCanns were sufficiently careful and are not to blame for the loss of their daughter. I do AGREE with your assertion that if they hadn't left the children alone briefly then their daughter probably wouldn't have been taken. These are NOT opposite points of view, however, and I can't understand why you think they are.

You are basically saying that they acted negligently in caring for their children, it seems. I disagree on this.

[BoredBloke]

"So if you have a nice expensive car that you drive about town in most days then is it your fault if it gets stolen from your LOCKED garage when you go pop to a neighbour's house across the street for a chat for half an hour?"

This is where the analogy fails. You cannot equate a kids life to owning a car. In your example, the owner of the car took reasonable steps to secure the car. With Madeline I do not feel that going out for a meal while leaving your kids alone is taking reasonable steps.

When we go on holiday we take our kids. When we go for a meal we take our kids, even when they were very young. When the kids need to sleep we (or at least one of us) stays with our kids - which is why we tend to rent out a villa, so the kids can sleep upstairs and we can relax by the pool. What we don't do and would never dream of doing is to lock them in a place (earleir reports said that they did not lock the place up) and then head on out, leaving them unattended. That, in my mind, is not taking reasonable care of your kids. If you employed a babysitter would you expect the babysitter to do that? Would it be ok to do this at home? Would it be ok for somebody to leave their 3 very young kids at home and head out to the pub?

Don't get me wrong, I think what happened to this family was awfull and I would not wish it on anybody, but they must take some of the blame and shuld cecerain level of consequences. It comes back to the simple fact that had they been with their kids, one of them would not be snatched.

[WotNxt]

We will just have to agree to disagree.

[smee.again]

This is where the analogy fails. You cannot equate a kids life to owning a car. In your example, the owner of the car took reasonable steps to secure the car. With Madeline I do not feel that going out for a meal while leaving your kids alone is taking reasonable steps.

When we go on holiday we take our kids. When we go for a meal we take our kids, even when they were very young. When the kids need to sleep we (or at least one of us) stays with our kids - which is why we tend to rent out a villa, so the kids can sleep upstairs and we can relax by the pool. What we don't do and would never dream of doing is to lock them in a place (earleir reports said that they did not lock the place up) and then head on out, leaving them unattended. That, in my mind, is not taking reasonable care of your kids. If you employed a babysitter would you expect the babysitter to do that? Would it be ok to do this at home? Would it be ok for somebody to leave their 3 very young kids at home and head out to the pub?

I agree. Leaving your kids in a hotel room when you are having a meal some 50-100 yards away is not responsible. I would say it was bordering on criminal and they will have to live with that mistake.