Reply to: Right or Wrong?

[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.

[WotNxt]

We will just have to agree to disagree.

[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]

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]

"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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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>

[smee.again]

I disagree! I love to love !!!

So did ABBA...apparently!!!

[Churchill]

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

I disagree! I love to love !!!

[WotNxt]

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

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

[richard-af]

From what I have read the apartment ...

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

[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.

[Churchill]

Prosecute 'em I say.

They were directly responsible for the loss of their child.