Madeleine McCann

Ban-jani said:
I completely appreciate the first part of your post. Children do get abducted all of the time whilst parents are behaving more than responsibly and the case we’re actually discussing negligence whilst in this particular case, probably highlights there’s a problem somewhere - it’s just how much of a problem you and I see.

Maybe it shouldn’t and I certainly wouldn’t advocate it in any given behaviour, however when deciding upon the safety levels of an area, specifically a holiday resort, those that have spent near enough a week there, will have a far better understanding than you or I.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

Just because someone has been there a week doesn’t mean they would be in a better position to assess risk or keep their children safe than someone who’d only been there, say, 1 day.

The point you’re continuing to miss, despite numerous posters trying their best to help you, is that any proper parent has an innate ‘must do’ approach to the ensuring of the safety of their children. The first thought is always safety, in fact nothing else even gets thought about until that safety is as assured as it possibly can be.

They don’t ‘risk assess’, take chances or do it in half measures, they just fucking do it. They can’t help it, it’s just in them.

This mob would rather go out on the piss and stick their head round the door, or in Oldfield’s case not even do that.

It’s not because they were ‘assessing the risk’ or because the area seemed safe or nice. It’s because they couldn’t be arsed. They attempted it in a slapdash, overly confident manner, because the children were a fucking inconvenience to them.

Then they tried to cover it up because they knew what a set of cunts they were going to look.
 
Stoned Rose said:
Not necessarily.

Just because someone has been there a week doesn’t mean they would be in a better position to assess risk or keep their children safe than someone who’d only been there, say, 1 day.

The point you’re continuing to miss, despite numerous posters trying their best to help you, is that any proper parent has an innate ‘must do’ approach to the ensuring of the safety of their children. The first thought is always safety, in fact nothing else even gets thought about until that safety is as assured as it possibly can be.

They don’t ‘risk assess’, take chances or do it in half measures, they just fucking do it. They can’t help it, it’s just in them.

This mob would rather go out on the piss and stick their head round the door, or in Oldfield’s case not even do that.

It’s not because they were ‘assessing the risk’ or because the area seemed safe or nice. It’s because they couldn’t be arsed. They attempted it in a slapdash, overly confident manner, because the children were a fucking inconvenience to them.

Then they tried to cover it up because they knew what a set of cunts they were going to look.
Click to expand...

And here you go barging in with that condescending tone whilst not making nearly as good points as the other poster who disagrees with me.

“Tried to help you” - I don’t need help, we’re having a discussion and it’s ok to disagree.

I feel there’s a case to be had, it was lax and they should have used the crèche or made it more difficult to enter/leave the apartment by locking it but I don’t believe leaving them 77m away whilst checking on them every 20 minutes is gross negligence.

Your language in the rest of the post shows an element of bias against them and I don’t believe this helps.
 
Dr.Faustus said:
I think I understand your second point better after this post; do you mean to provide context to the assessment of safety? If so, on this we can agree.

I would still contend however that there are certain actions which expose children, in breach of a parental fiduciary duty, to an unacceptable level of risk in spite of the surrounding environment- i.e. that no risk assessment of the safety levels of the surrounding area could explain a decision to act in particular way as rationally in the interests of the child.

I still maintain it is certainly debatable here, as the level of risk given the circumstances did not only extend to abduction (a rare event), but escape, injury in absence of supervision etc.
Click to expand...

Yes that’s exactly what I mean.

If they’ve been in this resort all week and only encountered helpful workers and other British families with small children, it may have brought them further to the belief it was OK.

For example, if you’re crossing a road you know to be very quiet, in the countryside, where cars only pass by every 15 minutes on average - whilst you’ll keep your child close and ensure they’re crossing safely - you may not do so quite as much as if you’re crossing a busy junction with cars flying past regularly.

In the first scenario you may hold their hand or walk right next to them, in the second you’ll probably pick them up.

Now obviously this isn’t comparable to leaving them in an apartment but it’s an example to highlight how you behave in two similar circumstances, just in different environments based on what you know.

I agree somewhat with the last part, they did take an unnecessary risk with injury etc. I think the punishment of hindsight is enough for them and I just disagree with the “lock them up” or “take the twins off them” mentally we see. I have a lot of sympathy for them.
 
Ban-jani said:
Yes that’s exactly what I mean.

If they’ve been in this resort all week and only encountered helpful workers and other British families with small children, it may have brought them further to the belief it was OK.

For example, if you’re crossing a road you know to be very quiet, in the countryside, where cars only pass by every 15 minutes on average - whilst you’ll keep your child close and ensure they’re crossing safely - you may not do so quite as much as if you’re crossing a busy junction with cars flying past regularly.

In the first scenario you may hold their hand or walk right next to them, in the second you’ll probably pick them up.

Now obviously this isn’t comparable to leaving them in an apartment but it’s an example to highlight how you behave in two similar circumstances, just in different environments based on what you know.

I agree somewhat with the last part, they did take an unnecessary risk with injury etc. I think the punishment of hindsight is enough for them and I just disagree with the “lock them up” or “take the twins off them” mentally we see. I have a lot of sympathy for them.
Click to expand...
Fwiw mate, I agree with you. They were lax and should have locked the apartment. However, the punishment they have had defies imagination. I feel sorry for them.
 
The problem i have in all of this talk of they thought she would be safe, no real risk etc, is that this is all about her being abducted. Now to be honest, i wouldn't expect any child to be abducted and don't think anyone should live their and their children's lives with this in mind all the time otherwise we'd strap our kids to ourselves permanently, (although we know it does go on) my issue is that in leaving the patio door unlocked they left her in a vulnerable state, as has been stated, she could have wandered out and gone into the road, she could have fell into the pool.

This alone makes me feel they were negligent in their duty as parents, they never looked out for her well-being in my opinion.

Who on here would leave a 4 year old alone near either of the 2 above risks?

Think we all know the answer to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.