[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

If they had not gone to dinner and left the children alone, they would have not opened themselves up to the condemnation from good parents who would never leave their children unattended in a foreign country, at night, whilst they went out on the piss. If they had not gone to dinner, the other attempts could have been thwarted if the children were properly supervised as they should have been at that age.

judement by hindsight is just judgement with hindsight, all parents have left their child unattended enough for an abduction to take place. It can take 5 seconds to whip a child away. When i was wee all children were left outside shops in prams whilst their mums shopped inside.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

judement by hindsight is just judgement with hindsight, all parents have left their child unattended enough for an abduction to take place. It can take 5 seconds to whip a child away. When i was wee all children were left outside shops in prams whilst their mums shopped inside.

Again LT whilst that may be true you have to put it in historical context, and claiming that it was usual or normal to leave children alone in an apartment and go out for dinner 12 years ago is simply flat out false.

Also as I said above; an "opportunity snatch" is a RISK for any predator at best, whilst sneaking a child away when you know they're going to be unattended for several hours is far less of a risk. They weren't checking on them or were checking infrequently at best, witness statements from several other people at the resort confirm that they weren't observed to be checking every 20 minutes, ONLY the Tapas people claim it was that often, and if you're right and she was stolen to order it's because (excuse the crass terminology) she was "low hanging fruit" and someone had been watching and knew that.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Again LT whilst that may be true you have to put it in historical context, and claiming that it was usual or normal to leave children alone in an apartment and go out for dinner 12 years ago is simply flat out false.

Also as I said above; an "opportunity snatch" is a RISK for any predator at best, whilst sneaking a child away when you know they're going to be unattended for several hours is far less of a risk. They weren't checking on them or were checking infrequently at best, witness statements from several other people at the resort confirm that they weren't observed to be checking every 20 minutes, ONLY the Tapas people claim it was that often, and if you're right and she was stolen to order it's because (excuse the crass terminology) she was "low hanging fruit" and someone had been watching and knew that.

perhaps but the fault lies firmly with the abductor or you end up blaming women for being raped for wearing tits out tops and getting drunk at night, or taking cabs home after a club etc

what they did was perfectly safe and millions do it

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

perhaps but the fault lies firmly with the abductor or you end up blaming women for being raped for wearing tits out tops and getting drunk at night, or taking cabs home after a club etc

what they did was perfectly safe and millions do it

No you don't LT, the parents at the very least are guilty of neglect/failing to protect their children. How on earth is that comparable to a girl wearing a low cut top?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

perhaps but the fault lies firmly with the abductor or you end up blaming women for being raped for wearing tits out tops and getting drunk at night, or taking cabs home after a club etc

what they did was perfectly safe and millions do it

The blame for the crime always lies with the perpetrator but no one is saying that if someone did take her, they should be let off "because it was easy" - they should face the full force of the law - whereas I don't think someone who has lost a child should face ANY consequences even if they have been reckless but it should still be acknowledged.

"Millions" certainly don't do it, I've never done it and would never dream of it and I literally don't personally know any parent who would. I know SOME people do it but I'd say the exact same about them; they're being reckless. It is NOT "perfectly safe" even if you take the risk of abduction out of the equation. What if there's a fire? Or any other emergency? Hell what if one of them simply wakes up scared from a nightmare and can't find their parents anywhere? It's just not OK .

It's also not "victim blaming" comparable to sexual assault either. Parental responsibility is not comparable to individual responsibility, for a start, and also as above the risks of leaving a child alone go WAY beyond the risk of being attacked.

What you could compare it to, is a parent failing to put a seatbelt on their child and then that child dying in what would otherwise have been a non-fatal crash. Would you lambast them and call them scum? No, you'd still have sympathy for them as a devastated parent who has lost a child, but it DOESN'T change the fact that they ****ed up and that should be acknowledged. You wouldn't' say to others, "Hey you shouldn't bother with seatbelts because crashing is pretty rare anyway"... you'd say "Remember to buckle everyone up because look what happened to that poor kid". Surely.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The blame for the crime always lies with the perpetrator but no one is saying that if someone did take her, they should be let off "because it was easy" - they should face the full force of the law - whereas I don't think someone who has lost a child should face ANY consequences even if they have been reckless but it should still be acknowledged.

"Millions" certainly don't do it, I've never done it and would never dream of it and I literally don't personally know any parent who would. I know SOME people do it but I'd say the exact same about them; they're being reckless. It is NOT "perfectly safe" even if you take the risk of abduction out of the equation. What if there's a fire? Or any other emergency? Hell what if one of them simply wakes up scared from a nightmare and can't find their parents anywhere? It's just not OK .

It's also not "victim blaming" comparable to sexual assault either. Parental responsibility is not comparable to individual responsibility, for a start, and also as above the risks of leaving a child alone go WAY beyond the risk of being attacked.

What you could compare it to, is a parent failing to put a seatbelt on their child and then that child dying in what would otherwise have been a non-fatal crash. Would you lambast them and call them scum? No, you'd still have sympathy for them as a devastated parent who has lost a child, but it DOESN'T change the fact that they ****ed up and that should be acknowledged. You wouldn't' say to others, "Hey you shouldn't bother with seatbelts because crashing is pretty rare anyway"... you'd say "Remember to buckle everyone up because look what happened to that poor kid". Surely.

Exactly, my son used to wake up at night all the time up to when he was around 7ish, he would be terrified if he woke up and someone wasn't there for him. That's why I found it so weird that kate says that Maddie had woken the night before and told her that the twins were crying and where was she? I would be horrified to think my babies had woken up and cried but no one came, so that should have been her "light bulb hindsight" moment (as if a person really needed one..........)

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The blame for the crime always lies with the perpetrator but no one is saying that if someone did take her, they should be let off "because it was easy" - they should face the full force of the law - whereas I don't think someone who has lost a child should face ANY consequences even if they have been reckless but it should still be acknowledged.

"Millions" certainly don't do it, I've never done it and would never dream of it and I literally don't personally know any parent who would. I know SOME people do it but I'd say the exact same about them; they're being reckless. It is NOT "perfectly safe" even if you take the risk of abduction out of the equation. What if there's a fire? Or any other emergency? Hell what if one of them simply wakes up scared from a nightmare and can't find their parents anywhere? It's just not OK .

It's also not "victim blaming" comparable to sexual assault either. Parental responsibility is not comparable to individual responsibility, for a start, and also as above the risks of leaving a child alone go WAY beyond the risk of being attacked.

What you could compare it to, is a parent failing to put a seatbelt on their child and then that child dying in what would otherwise have been a non-fatal crash. Would you lambast them and call them scum? No, you'd still have sympathy for them as a devastated parent who has lost a child, but it DOESN'T change the fact that they ****ed up and that should be acknowledged. You wouldn't' say to others, "Hey you shouldn't bother with seatbelts because crashing is pretty rare anyway"... you'd say "Remember to buckle everyone up because look what happened to that poor kid". Surely.

what about letting your daughter drink at 16 and she chokes to death on vomit, what about letting her go to a concert at 17 with her pals and she takes a dodgy E - letting your 7 year old son go to the local park and he gets abducted on his way home?

That wee girl on the scottish island was in her bed and was not safe, the parents did not lock the house door - i have not heard much abuse about them?

to try and have a go at the parents after a child is abducted is gross, they decided what they has set up was safe and its their call. Maybe some parents think that the worst will always happen but some dont because it does not.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

what about letting your daughter drink at 16 and she chokes to death on vomit, what about letting her go to a concert at 17 with her pals and she takes a dodgy E - letting your 7 year old son go to the local park and he gets abducted on his way home?

That wee girl on the scottish island was in her bed and was not safe, the parents did not lock the house door - i have not heard much abuse about them?

to try and have a go at the parents after a child is abducted is gross, they decided what they has set up was safe and its their call. Maybe some parents think that the worst will always happen but some dont because it does not.

It wasn't safe though obviously, people are entitled to comment

In this case, the worst did happen so people are entitled to comment.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

It wasn't safe though obviously, people are entitled to comment

In this case, the worst did happen so people are entitled to comment.

not commenting on the fact that wee girl Alesha was abducted from an unlocked house?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

what about letting your daughter drink at 16 and she chokes to death on vomit, what about letting her go to a concert at 17 with her pals and she takes a dodgy E - letting your 7 year old son go to the local park and he gets abducted on his way home?

There are necessary nominal risks involved in letting your children grow up and become more independent, just as there are necessary nominal risks in life. We have electrical appliances in our homes although there's a risk that they will start a fire; we have smoke detectors to minimize the risk that a fire will end in a death because a responsible adult will or should know what to do in the event of a fire.

Leaving a 3 year old (and two younger children) ALONE in an apartment on holiday is not a necessary nominal risk and the fact is that most people simply would not do it, despite your insistence otherwise. I can't figure out if you're so adamant that it's normal for "McCann reasons"... or because it's something you've done in the past and you don't want to think of it as poor parenting?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Again LT whilst that may be true you have to put it in historical context, and claiming that it was usual or normal to leave children alone in an apartment and go out for dinner 12 years ago is simply flat out false.

Also as I said above; an "opportunity snatch" is a RISK for any predator at best, whilst sneaking a child away when you know they're going to be unattended for several hours is far less of a risk. They weren't checking on them or were checking infrequently at best, witness statements from several other people at the resort confirm that they weren't observed to be checking every 20 minutes, ONLY the Tapas people claim it was that often, and if you're right and she was stolen to order it's because (excuse the crass terminology) she was "low hanging fruit" and someone had been watching and knew that.

Exactly. I watched a documentary one time where they actually interviewed thieves, as in house burglars. They always targeted the houses with the least security, no alarms, no dogs etc because guess what?? risk of being caught was significantly lowered

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Exactly. I watched a documentary one time where they actually interviewed thieves, as in house burglars. They always targeted the houses with the least security, no alarms, no dogs etc because guess what?? risk of being caught was significantly lowered

and you would blame your neighbour for being burgled for not having a dog?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

and you would blame your neighbour for being burgled for not having a dog?

No LT but then again my neighbour isn't likely to be arrested for not looking after their house properly either

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

and you would blame your neighbour for being burgled for not having a dog?

I would 'blame' my neighbour for being burgled if they had gone out for hours, left their front door wide open along with all their windows. Insurance companies would too oddly enough.

Edit. Should maybe clarify my use of 'blame' here. It would be the fault of the burglar for stealing. But, the homeowners made it easy. All of this is kind of besides the point though as I don't believe an abductor existed.

[GoldHeart]

The mcCann's behaviour & actions from the beginning have been questionable and very bizarre.

I will never understand how parent's can leave their very young children alone in an apartment while on holiday in a foreign country as they go out for drinks with their friends .

If Madeline WAS kidnapped , the parent's were the ones that made it very easy to happen by abandoning their kids home alone . But i don't think we'll ever find out what really happened.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

The mcCann's behaviour & actions from the beginning have been questionable and very bizarre.

I will never understand how parent's can leave their very young children alone in an apartment while on holiday in a foreign country as they go out for drinks with their friends .

If Madeline WAS kidnapped , the parent's were the ones that made it very easy to happen by abandoning their kids home alone . But i don't think we'll ever find out what really happened.

they didnt

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

they didnt

They didn't make it easy? Oh LT

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

judement by hindsight is just judgement with hindsight, all parents have left their child unattended enough for an abduction to take place. It can take 5 seconds to whip a child away. When i was wee all children were left outside shops in prams whilst their mums shopped inside.

Sorry but that's so ridiculous, you shouldn't need hindsight to know you don't leave babies alone in an unlocked (or locked) apartment we'll you go out on the piss. Give me a break