 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / May 2007Please Look for this Little Girl and Pass on This Post (translate and cross post if Possible too)
Dear All, Please watch the video and keep in mind that the child could be 'anywhere' in the world, even your own neighborhood. Consider that her hair color might have been changed and cut, maybe she's been dressed as a boy, but her right iris has a definite and unmistakable mark in it. http://www.findmadeleine.com/ http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91210-1266570,00.html http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-1266435,00.html If you have this child or know who does, you are responsible for keeping two doctors away from their work, and possibly many more who have given up their work to search for the child. Ultimately this will have a knock on effect to _you_ and your family, where ever you are in the world. By the power of the Lord Jesus Christ and all that is Holy I promise you that you will come to regret this if you do not give up this child today. Carol T "My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things." NKJ > Dear All, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I promise you that you will come to regret this if you do not give up > this child today. This is a really big news story in Britain at the moment: the child in question was snatched from a holiday apartmnet over two weeks ago.  SignaturePenny Gaines UK mum to three > If you have this child or know who does, you are responsible for > keeping two doctors away from their work Would I want two such irresponsible people to be in charge of my medical care? The parents shirked their responsibilty by choosing to go out to dinner and leave three small children alone. I'm sorry for the child and her siblings, but not for the parents. > > If you have this child or know who does, you are responsible for > > keeping two doctors away from their work > > Would I want two such irresponsible people to be in charge of my medical > care? What's the correlation between medical care and personal decisions vis a vis child-minding? (for me it's sort of like rejecting Einstein's work on Browning motion based on the mysteries of Lieserl's fate.) Caledonia >> > If you have this child or know who does, you are responsible for >> > keeping two doctors away from their work [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What's the correlation between medical care and personal decisions > vis a vis child-minding? Probably the same correlation between adulterous behavior and the ability to govern the United States. >>If you have this child or know who does, you are responsible for >>keeping two doctors away from their work [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > leave three small children alone. I'm sorry for the child and her siblings, > but not for the parents. Nice judgment there. You know the family personally do you? You were there and can make the call that they were irresponsible? This family are suffering tremendous loss and anguish, the last thing they need is this kind of peanut gallery judgment. As my father used to say, if you've nothing good to say, say nothing at all. >>>If you have this child or know who does, you are responsible for >>>keeping two doctors away from their work [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Nice judgment there. You know the family personally do you? You were >there and can make the call that they were irresponsible? Uhm, the media "puts us there" and yes I can make the call that they acted irresponsibly. Their child is missing, is she not? >This family are suffering tremendous loss and anguish, the last thing >they need is this kind of peanut gallery judgment. Then they shouldn't have done something so stupid. >As my father used to say, if you've nothing good to say, say nothing at all. This is usenet, and life. We get to say what we want, even when you don't like it. Nan >>>If you have this child or know who does, you are responsible for >>>keeping two doctors away from their work [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This family are suffering tremendous loss and anguish, the last thing they > need is this kind of peanut gallery judgment. Have you read the news story? They practically hung a sign on her saying "TAKE ME". > As my father used to say, if you've nothing good to say, say nothing at > all. It's a different world now. >>>>If you have this child or know who does, you are responsible for >>>>keeping two doctors away from their work [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Have you read the news story? They practically hung a sign on her saying > "TAKE ME". Huh? They left the children in a locked room a short distance away from where they were eating - the restaurent was closer to their rooms then the end of my garden is to my children's room. I've seen the distance described as 40 yards, or 50 metres (yes, I know those can't both be right). But it wasn't some huge long distance, it was very close. I'm not saying it was right even to go that distance, but it wasn't some feckless parents going off clubbing. SignaturePenny Gaines UK mum to three >> Have you read the news story? They practically hung a sign on her saying >> "TAKE ME". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as 40 yards, or 50 metres (yes, I know those can't both be right). But > it wasn't some huge long distance, it was very close. This wasn't their personal backyard and for that reason, I find it reckless. They were visiting, I believe as tourists, which means they don't know the area that well. They don't know how dangerous or safe it is. They checked on the children every half hour. Anything can happen in half an hour. They could come back to find a dead body or worse. The child could be 30 miles away in half an hour. Personally, I would not wander any further than the boundaries of my yard with children that young sleeping. Some people wander farther, but fires start, all sorts of things happen, and when one is nearby, one can sense the trouble before it's too late. >>> Have you read the news story? They practically hung a sign on her saying >>> "TAKE ME". [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >half an hour. They could come back to find a dead body or worse. The >child could be 30 miles away in half an hour. That could happen even with older children, even in their own home, even in their own backyard. I think you are being a bit judgmental. I have traveled with little children, and sometimes it isn't possible for them to eat at the same time as I was eating, and takeaway or room service wasn't an option. So I had a choice - go hungry or leave the child in the hotel room while I ate. Usually I would get someone to sit in close proximity to watch the child while I ate, but I did what I had to do. >Personally, I would not wander any further than the boundaries of my yard >with children that young sleeping. Some people wander farther, but fires >start, all sorts of things happen, and when one is nearby, one can sense >the trouble before it's too late. Not always. There are two stories on the news here about people that have been killed in fires in the last couple of days, and the parents were right in the house with the children, and in one case, one of the parents died with the children. Each person has their own comfort zone WRT distance from their children and supervision. You have yours, and I had mine. I once lost my oldest child IN my house. It turned out that she was standing quietly in front of the picture window concealed by the floor to ceiling curtains, and she wasn't very big (maybe 10 months), so she didn't make a lump in the curtains. If something happens, it is all too easy to say that it was the parent's fault because they didn't behave as you would have done. That doesn't mean that you are right. In any case, it isn't our place to try to assign blame, and it isn't helpful or kind. >>>> Have you read the news story? They practically hung a >>>> sign on her saying "TAKE ME". [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Usually I would get someone to sit in close proximity to > watch the child while I ate, but I did what I had to do. except that the place they were staying *had* childminders available. the parents *chose* to leave the kids alone in the room. they didn't have to. there were options. even if there *hadn't* been child care available, one parent could have stayed while the other either went to get dinner or ate & then switched so the first could eat. i'm not so much for placing blame, & i think this is a really horrible way to learn a lesson. unfortunately, what seems like common sense, generally isn't :( i do hope they find their daughter, & soon. lee > i'm not so much for placing blame, & i think this is a really >horrible way to learn a lesson. unfortunately, what seems like >common sense, generally isn't :( > i do hope they find their daughter, & soon. >lee This is my thinking, as well. As long as it's being discussed, I'll respond that I think they did something really, really stupid. But I really, really hope their child is alive and safe and returned soon. Nan >>>> Have you read the news story? They practically hung a sign on her saying >>>> "TAKE ME". [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > while I ate. Usually I would get someone to sit in close proximity to > watch the child while I ate, but I did what I had to do. I don't think that's the situation here. They joined friends for dinner. One of those adults could have stayed to watch the children. >>Personally, I would not wander any further than the boundaries of my yard >>with children that young sleeping. Some people wander farther, but fires [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > were right in the house with the children, and in one case, one of the > parents died with the children. It is not always possible to save the children, but it is much more possible to save them if you are in close proximity. It is guaranteed to be impossible when you are not in the area. > Each person has their own comfort zone WRT distance from their > children and supervision. You have yours, and I had mine. I once > lost my oldest child IN my house. It turned out that she was standing > quietly in front of the picture window concealed by the floor to > ceiling curtains, and she wasn't very big (maybe 10 months), so she > didn't make a lump in the curtains. Some people are so comfortable leaving their young children that they go on vacation and leave them home alone to fend for themselves (young children, not teenagers). At some point, the action has to be deemed an unreasonable risk and a majority of the population will assign blame. > If something happens, it is all too easy to say that it was the > parent's fault because they didn't behave as you would have done. That > doesn't mean that you are right. > > In any case, it isn't our place to try to assign blame, and it isn't > helpful or kind. I am sure the parents have learned their lesson and don't need to be reminded of their part in this tragedy. We are discussing this however, because parents disagree on what level of risk was acceptable in this scenario. >>>>>If you have this child or know who does, you are responsible for >>>>>keeping two doctors away from their work [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > They left the children in a locked room How did the abductor get into the room? > a short distance away from where > they were eating - the restaurent was closer to their rooms then the end [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm not saying it was right even to go that distance, but it wasn't some > feckless parents going off clubbing. >>>>>>If you have this child or know who does, you are responsible for >>>>>>keeping two doctors away from their work [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > How did the abductor get into the room? The window. >>>> Have you read the news story? They practically hung a sign on her saying >>>> "TAKE ME". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >The window. That was how Elizabeth Smart was taken from her own room in her own house was it not? Through the window? Leaving children in a locked room is not the same as hanging a sign on the kids neck saying "Take Me". While it may be true that baby sitting services might have been available, that isn't necessarily a cure-all unless you also assume that a) the baby sitter herself or a cohort wouldn't be the abductor and/or wouldn't have done something harmful to the child (after all - the parents wouldn't have the ability to check her out) and b) that even if they had a sitter, that the sitter would have been able to prevent the abduction. My sister and I were traveling with my niece and we did go to dinner in the hotel after asking for someone to sit with the baby (about a year old at the time). The person sat outside the room in the hall. If someone had come through the window, she wouldn't have known. It's really easy to second guess what people do. > While it may be true that baby sitting services might have been > available, that isn't necessarily a cure-all unless you also assume [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wouldn't have done something harmful to the child (after all - the > parents wouldn't have the ability to check her out) and They didn't need to use the sitter at all. They could have had one of the adults in their group watch the child. > b) that even if they had a sitter, that the sitter would have been > able to prevent the abduction. An abductor would more likely take an unattended child, if one was available. If you were a purse snactcher, would you take one you see left unguarded on a bench or one that is sitting next to its owner? If you were a purse snatcher but you weren't hunting for a purse and you happened to see one laying there unattended, wouldn't you take it just because it was there? There are lots of criminals who do crime just because the opportunity is there. Would you leave your wallet on the bench unattended because the crook could pick-pocket you if you had it in your purse anyway? Don't you think the chances of you losing your wallet is a lot greater when you leave it unattended as opposed to taking it with you? If you take it with you, does it mean you will never lose it to a thief? Of course not. It does lessen your chances of losing it, though. > My sister and I were traveling with my niece and we did go to dinner > in the hotel after asking for someone to sit with the baby (about a > year old at the time). The person sat outside the room in the hall. > If someone had come through the window, she wouldn't have known. Yes, but you didn't leave the baby locked in the room alone unwatched. Why? Because it's too risky. >> While it may be true that baby sitting services might have been >> available, that isn't necessarily a cure-all unless you also assume [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >They didn't need to use the sitter at all. They could have had one of the >adults in their group watch the child. People keep saying this, but I don't think it is much of an option at all. It wouldn't be much of a vacation for that designated adult. I wouldn't want to ask someone else to do it and I wouldn't want to do it myself and certainly not for someone else's child. I have not read about this incident anywhere except in this ng. I don't even know what country the resort was in, but I think the resort bears some responsibility here. Why were the windows so accessible. Were they on the first floor? >> b) that even if they had a sitter, that the sitter would have been >> able to prevent the abduction. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >there? There are lots of criminals who do crime just because the >opportunity is there. I do not think this is a valid analogy. No one snatches a child just because they see one unattended. (I'm thinking of the O' Henry story "The Ransom of Red Chief" http://fiction.eserver.org/short/ransom_of_red_chief.html They are either after ransom, or they have some deranged idea in mind. >Would you leave your wallet on the bench unattended because the crook could >pick-pocket you if you had it in your purse anyway? Don't you think the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Yes, but you didn't leave the baby locked in the room alone unwatched. >Why? Because it's too risky. No we didn't leave the baby unwatched because it was too risky. It wasn't. She wasn't walking yet, and we were on the 6th floor. We were afraid she'd wake up and scream her head off and bother the other guests. >>> While it may be true that baby sitting services might have been >>> available, that isn't necessarily a cure-all unless you also assume [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > wouldn't want to ask someone else to do it and I wouldn't want to do > it myself and certainly not for someone else's child. There are two parents. If they don't want to watch their own children or get one of their friends to do it just because they are on vacation, they should leave the children at home or not be on vacation. >>An abductor would more likely take an unattended child, if one was >>available. If you were a purse snactcher, would you take one you see left [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > because they see one unattended. (I'm thinking of the O' Henry story > "The Ransom of Red Chief" No one? This one did. What more glaring example do you need? A child abductor would more likely snatch a child if the opportunity were there than when it is not. He most likely would not have done it were there an adult sitting in the room. Most criminals commit crimes when they have the least chance of getting caught. If this abductor was brazen, he would have snatched one off the streets in broad daylight. No, he snatched one that was sleeping alone with two toddlers. >>>> While it may be true that baby sitting services might have been >>>> available, that isn't necessarily a cure-all unless you also assume [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >get one of their friends to do it just because they are on vacation, they >should leave the children at home or not be on vacation. I wouldn't have wanted to be left behind to watch the kids like some kind of au pair if I was on vacation. I myself would have probably paid a sitter. But I am unwilling to concede that either of us has the right to tell other parents what they should do or not do with their vacation or whether they should take their children on vacation with them. >>>An abductor would more likely take an unattended child, if one was >>>available. If you were a purse snactcher, would you take one you see left [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >No one? This one did. What more glaring example do you need? A child The Ransom of Red Chief is FICTION. >abductor would more likely snatch a child if the opportunity were there >than when it is not. He most likely would not have done it were there an >adult sitting in the room. Most criminals commit crimes when they have the >least chance of getting caught. If this abductor was brazen, he would have >snatched one off the streets in broad daylight. No, he snatched one that >was sleeping alone with two toddlers. If the child was with two toddlers, she was not alone. Elizabeth Smart wasn't alone either BTW - I think her sister was in the room with her. Snatching a child who is playing outside or taking a child from a store or on the way home from school is completely different from taking a baby from inside a room at a resort. But I'd like to know why you think people of whatever age that are asleep in a resort room are available to criminals?? If the child could be taken from the room, then valuables could also be taken. Robbery is one thing that the resort needs to be aware of and/or prevent, which means not only security of the doors, but also of the windows. Why was there not security at the windows? Do they know for sure that it wasn't someone that had a passkey? >>There are two parents. If they don't want to watch their own children or >>get one of their friends to do it just because they are on vacation, they [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > other parents what they should do or not do with their vacation or > whether they should take their children on vacation with them. What about parents who leave their young children home alone to go on vacation? At some point, you must have an opinion about their decision. At least the authorities have an opinion. Those children are taken away. >>> I do not think this is a valid analogy. No one snatches a child just >>> because they see one unattended. (I'm thinking of the O' Henry story [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The Ransom of Red Chief is FICTION. I am talking about this abducted girl, not Ransom of Red Chief. > If the child was with two toddlers, she was not alone. Elizabeth > Smart wasn't alone either BTW - I think her sister was in the room > with her. Good grief. What can two toddlers do to stop a kidnapper? As for Elizabeth Smart, I am not saying an adult in the house is a guarantee against kidnapping. It certainly is a deterrent. A kidnapper who has a choice of two equally desirable children would presumably choose the one who is unattended. > But I'd like to know why you think people of whatever age that are > asleep in a resort room are available to criminals?? Unattended children are easy prey. They are also a recipe for disaster. Even if the girl was not kidnapped right out of the room, she could have been frightened of not seeing her parents, being in a strange room, and went looking for her parents. The hotel could have burned down. Yes, those things can happen regardless of having an adult there or not. However, an adult would more likely take the proper actions to save the family. If children can manage, then why do parents, daycare, sitters and nannies exist? Why not leave them home alone all the time? If the child > could be taken from the room, then valuables could also be taken. > Robbery is one thing that the resort needs to be aware of and/or > prevent, which means not only security of the doors, but also of the > windows. Why was there not security at the windows? Do they know > for sure that it wasn't someone that had a passkey? A resort is a location not familiar to most tourists. They don't know the locale, the safety of the area. Why leave their children in an unfamiliar area where the security may be lacking? I would not care if my valuables were stolen. Whatever valuables I do care about are with me when I leave the room. Nothing is more valuable than my children. As for the window, the window was open when the parents came back to check on them and they assume that is how the kidnapper got the child. I am assuming that since it was a window that was open and they assumed the kidnapping happened through there, that this was a bottom floor. Perhaps the kidnapper could observe that the children were alone through the window. > I have not read about this incident anywhere except in this ng. I > don't even know what country the resort was in, but I think the resort > bears some responsibility here. Why were the windows so accessible. > Were they on the first floor? You really ought to read the news accounts before posting then! The parents are receiving a fair amount of criticism because of their actions. >> I have not read about this incident anywhere except in this ng. I >> don't even know what country the resort was in, but I think the resort [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You really ought to read the news accounts before posting then! The parents >are receiving a fair amount of criticism because of their actions. I'm not interested in what happened. It is not important except to the people involved. What I am against is judging parents on the basis of news reports, and saying things like >>>> They practically hung a sign on her saying "TAKE ME". Leaving a child in a locked room with two other children (and as for what the other children could do - they could wake up and cry and that would attract other people's attention) while you go to dinner is NOT the same as letting a child play in traffic or leaving the children alone at home while going on vacation. It's just fear-mongering. No matter how careful a parent is, there is always going to be something that you haven't thought of or have failed to do, and your child may be hurt or killed as a result. Parents are just human. Pointing fingers after the fact doesn't help. It doesn't even help to be sure that other parents won't do the same thing. The parents that it affects are the same ones that are ALREADY doing everything they can. >>They didn't need to use the sitter at all. They could have had one of the >>adults in their group watch the child. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >wouldn't want to ask someone else to do it and I wouldn't want to do >it myself and certainly not for someone else's child. I don't know about this incident much. But, c'mon - why not. Trading off with other adults is one common way people go about activities with young children in tow. It's one dinner, not a whole vacation to be "not much of..". People do it as weddings, at dinners, at fairs - many venues, and often as a back up plan if one or more kids act up. Banty [snip] > I have not read about this incident anywhere except in this ng. I > don't even know what country the resort was in, but I think the resort > bears some responsibility here. Why were the windows so accessible. > Were they on the first floor? [snip] It's a major news story in the UK. The family was on holiday in Portugal, staying in a holiday complex. The villa and the restaurent where they were eating were both in the complex. SignaturePenny Gaines UK mum to three > Leaving children in a locked room is not the same as hanging a sign on > the kids neck saying "Take Me". [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > It's really easy to second guess what people do. The parents are ultimately responsible for what happens to the kids. These kids were unattended, in a resort, in a foreign country. Who knows if someone had eyeballed them before, liked the girl, and grabbed her when she was unattended? Unattended children = accident waiting to happen. Just because you did it before and nothing happened doesn't make it right. > >>>> Have you read the news story? They practically hung a sign on her saying > >>>> "TAKE ME". [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Leaving children in a locked room is not the same as hanging a sign on > the kids neck saying "Take Me". The room was not locked (patio doors left open for easy checks). mc >>deja.blues wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Have you read the news story? They practically hung a sign on her saying > "TAKE ME". Yes I have followed the news story, I am familiar with the area in Portugal so it drew my attention from the beginning. I'm not suggesting that the parents were completely innocent of blame, they did leave their children alone while they ate a meal some distance away, it's not something I would do and they have paid a terrible price, I feel badly for them and this poor child. I do not agree, however, with casting judgment based on media reports, the media is ridiculous, they want to see papers or get you to watch their show/visit their site. In this clamour for your attention the truth is often misrepresented in favour of melodrama and sensation. >Nice judgment there. You know the family personally do you? You were >there and can make the call that they were irresponsible? The resort had child minders available for a fee. With two year olds, you don't leave them alone as they can wake up and be scared. Any parent who does this is irresponsible. It was not a case of leaving for 5 minutes, but for the duration of an evening meal. That said, I still feel bad for the kids. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits Look at this: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/missing/mccann.asp This is true. Personally, I would love to see her get home. Jeff |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.