Setting aside for a moment the latest twist, I have to respectfully disagree that the McCanns were irresponsible. Of course, it's not ideal to have left the children alone, but which of us has never taken a risk? Which parent can say they have never made an error of judgment?
50 yards away, with parents regularly going to and fro: this wasn't just the McCanns taking a risk but a group of families. It must have felt incredibly safe.
There have plenty of times where I have made a mistake and not been punished. I remember one time nearly falling asleep at the wheel of my car. I could easily have killed someone then. Of course, I would be wrong, but I refuse to believe that any of us has led an unblemished life, free from risk, or errors of judgment.
On a wider point, I think we're being paralysed by people who'll have us take no risks. Where does it end? Do we stop our 11 year olds from playing football in the park because they might be shot?
And to speculate on the McCanns' judgment when they have suffered so much, is to my mind, missing the point, as well as cruel. Focus on the evil of paedophilia, rather than vilify those poor parents who have been touched by this evil.
There but for the grace of God go all of us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
but you do admit in your posting that they took a risk. clearly, a bad one, in this case.
i'm not vilifying the parents nor saying they deserved it, i'm saying they are responsible for their children's welfare while under their supervision. young children, foreign country, no sitter...you do the math. it could work out fine, but the risk, to use your word, is greater that something bad will happen and it did.
it's called using common sense and being a responsible parent. talk to any decent parent and they will agree.
btw, the restaurant was 100 yards away.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6984836.stm
Yes - but you see all risk as bad. I see it as inevitable.
I have done the math, and come down on the McCanns side, who I see as both responsible and decent, hence the post.
Interesting debate though.
The distance varies! The fact is that the chance of being abducted by a stranger is so miniscule that to live your life in fear of that is to misunderstand the meaning of risk.
You say speak to any parent and they'll agree. Not true: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1762734.ece
I tend to disagree with you, Rob. It's not that risk is good or bad. Certainly, life is all about risk of one kind or another. There are mindless risks we take everyday but, in a case like this, I think a lot has to do with the value to you of what you risk compared to the value to you of what you risk it for and considering what the price would be for a loss.
Say, a million pounds in gold coins. Would you leave it unguarded in a hotel room in a foreign country where hundreds of strangers know you have a million pounds in gold coins in your room?
Two educated adults leave three children, all under the age of 4 years old, "alone" in a hotel room, in a foreign country where hundreds of strangers a milling about.....for...a bite to eat and chat with other adults. When I first heard of this tragedy months ago, I was shocked and angery with them. I'm sorry, but it was irresponsible.....or....perhaps something even worse.
My mom and I are on opposite sides of the speculation that they, themselves, are involved in the disappearance of Madeleine. My mom doesn't think they could have done it...but, I do. Accidentally, probably. My mom, however, is a person who still tears up a bit from parental guilt when she tells the story of how I fell off the changing table as a baby because she "risked" reaching for can of powder and took her hand off me for an instant.
As for punishment, no, they have already more than they can bear. I don't think there's any worse punishment for loving parents to endure than the loss of their child due to their own carelessness...if that's what it was. Z
PS: I would have commented on this the other day but I foolishly read your link to article about paedophilia and became both physically and psychally sick.
come, come, rob. i'm disappointed in your debate tactics.
you're trying to make this personal. i have never said all risk is bad--you're putting words in my mouth. surely, given many of the choices i've made in my life, that is self-evident. i am all about calculated risk and taking ownership of my actions/decisions.
let's talk semantics. "you say speak to any parent," again, you put words in my mouth. i said, "talk to any decent parent". that's not the same thing at all and certainly not all parents are 'decent' ones.
as a parent (which is very different from being responsible only for one's self), it is imperative to carefully consider risks to your children. forget the 'chances of being abducted' (no source cited for that statistic), what if there'd been a fire? one of the children had choked on a toy? hurt themselves? any number of things could go wrong.
not all possibilities can be anticipated and i agree, risk IS inevitable, but reasonable steps can and should be taken to ensure a child's safety. it's the same as installing smoke detectors in your home, locking your door, or wearing a seatbelt.
your article link didn't work, so i assume it's this one: http://tinyurl.com/2ltu73
the lawyer pretty much states that, "It is an offence under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to neglect or abandon a child under the age of 16 for whom a parent or carer has responsibility." so, the law essentially sides with me here on child neglect/abandonment. in other words, irresponsibility.
i don't know who these editor women are, but being a professional or an editor (or a doctor) certainly does not necessarily qualify someone as a good parent. so, i'm not entirely sure what point you're attempting to prove by referring to them. particularly, because they seem to support my argument more than yours.
since you have, however, let me point out a few things that stand out to me:
-the second editor says she was terrified being alone on her own as a child. and that she wouldn't leave her own very young children (under 5) unattended. seems to me those statements support my views.
-the first woman talks about leaving older (school-aged children) alone without worry. and her daughter walking to the candy store alone (yet they followed her at first), all from the comfort of her own neighborhood and country. seems to me this is comparing apples and oranges. these sentiments really have little in common with the madeleine situation. in the case of the mccanns, they left their 4 year old daughter and two 2-year old babies alone in a foreign country.
a group of families you say? one can hardly justify something as being 'right' or ok just because someone else has is doing it. "if someone told you to jump off a bridge..." let's have some ownership here.
why not have each of the adults take a turn watching the kids for 30 min. at a time? how about a baby sitter? surely, two doctors can afford it. or eat earlier and bring the kids along. children are not something to dispose of when inconvenient.
make no mistake. this is not an argument for sheltering children, on the contrary, children should be taught to look out for themselves and be aware of their surroundings.
you are essentially taking all fault from their [mccanns] shoulders. i think we can all agree it's not the children's fault. so, it's just no one's fault, but a wacko or corrupt society? admit the parents have some responsibility, instead of criticizing my rational views.
i'm not suggesting they should be punished for their neglect, clearly they are suffering enough already. but i see nothing 'cruel' about holding people responsible for their actions.
to Z's point, only time will tell what really happened, if we ever do find out at all. the mccanns are now considered official suspects by the portugese investigators. personally, i will consider them innocent til proven guilty. that will not stop me from considering them partly to blame for creating the situation, however.
let us just hope the poor girl is still alive.
Yes, after all our opinions and debates, I think we are all on the same side and that is, we all want to see Madeleine home safe and reunited with her family. Z
Blimey. I’m not making ‘trying to make this personal’ at all and I don’t have any ‘debate tactics’. I hurriedly paraphrased a couple of your comments (pretty accurately in my view) and you’ve picked up on the semantics of how this was expressed. I suppose that’s fair enough, but it doesn’t really advance the debate.
For example, your point about speaking to any ‘decent parent’ as opposed to my paraphrasing to ‘any parent’. What parent does not think they are decent? What you seem to mean is speak to any parent who you deem to be decent and they will agree with your viewpoint.
Equally, I think the tenet of your argument is that risk, when applied to childcare, is bad. My only point of disagreement is that some risk is unavoidable and that parents have a responsibility to weigh up the risk as they see it. I think the McCanns did that. My overarching point is that this sort of risk gets taken every day by parents and no one notices, mainly because abduction happens so rarely.
I included that link because it was reasonably balanced and had both views represented incidentally.
I don’t think your lengthy quotation of the legal act adds anything to your argument; it’s still your interpretation of those words, particularly the word ‘abandonment’ which in m view hardly applies to the McCanns. And it was also from the wrong scenario - one about being left in a car. For the McCanns’ scenario she said: “If the parents have taken all the risks into account and decided that it is safe to leave the children, this (scenario) would probably be reasonable”.
So I can’t follow your order to ‘admit the parents have some responsibility, instead of criticizing my rational views’ and I'm afraid I don’t see your views as any more rational than mine.
And finally yes, I do remove the McCanns from blame. I blame the abductor. That is not the same as saying they could have been more responsible. We could all be more responsible all the time, but few of us are punished in this way.
Rob, you know I agree with you on many things but in this matter, I think you are "on the wrong side of the stick."
I've read all of the posts and I don't see that Twelve said anywhere that the McCanns were being "justly punished" for their actions. She was just outraged that people would leave such young children alone which provided opportunity for this terrible event.
I think it's just common sense that you don't leave such young children alone - even for a half hour at a time from 100 yards away. It's true, many other life threatening things could have occured in half hour increments. You just don't do that!! Sure probably 9 out of 10 times, nothing will happen but the terrible cost of the 10th time just isn't worth the risk. Twelve is right; Madeleine could have awakened and wandered out and been snatched by who knows who.
Morover, what about Madeleine? She is the one truly innocent here. She depended on her parents to look after her. Leaving her and her two year old sibs alone in a room, in a hotel, in a foreign country and checking on them every half hour was wrong, was irresponsible, was the reason she is now missing. What fate has this poor child met with so that...what, her parents could relax a bit. Of course they are entitled to relax. Why didn't they just get a sitter? ? These questions bother me. They seem so common sense that it is what makes me wonder if it isn't the McCanns themselves who have harmed Madeleine and now trying to cover it up.
Since you so staunchly defend their actions, I have to ask, "Would you leave your children all under four years old alone...anywhere...just to have a bite to eat and relax?"
You say it is the preadator who is to be blamed and held reponsible and certainly that is true...but...if the McCanns were camping and left their young children alone more than 100 yards away and only checked on them every 30 minutes...and a wild animal snuck in during that ample 30 minute window and killed one of them....who would be to blame? The wild animal doing what instinct compels it to or the parents who gave the animal the ample opportunity?
Again, no one is saying the McCanns deserve this awful tragedy or deserve to be punished more than they already have. Most of all, little Maddy doesn't deserve this. Yes, we all make mistakes and suffer no consequence but that is not an argument to support irresponsible actions ...especially when another person's life, in this case a child's life, are what are at stake. Z
PS: If there are spelling or gramatical errors in the above post...I don't care!! This topic has been exhausting! Z
Errr, grammatical. Z
Hi Z. Whilst I completely respect your view, and genuinely welcome you expressing it, it isn’t for you to arbitrate whether I am on the “wrong side of the stick”.
And just let me point out clearly that I know Twellve is not saying the McCanns were justly punished. She made that very clear. But when did I suggest otherwise?
It is your opinion (and Twellve’s) that it is not OK to leave the children alone and I respect that, but I disagree with it. Your scenario of the tent is a different situation altogether and therefore (in my view) sheds no light on this case.
All the points you make about baby sitting etc are surely reasonable, especially with the benefit of hindsight. But even that would not come without risk. How do you know who the babysitter is? Where do you draw the line in terms of what’s a risk and what isn’t?
My only point is that no parent is perfect and they judge situations as they see fit. I believe all parents (and humans) take risks like this in one way or another, and to single out the McCanns because they were unlucky is (again, my view!) unbelievably harsh.
No, Rob, I don’t think you respect my view, at all, since you followed that remark with a dismissing statement that says, “it isn’t for me to arbitrate whether you are on the right side or wrong side of the stick.”
If you didn’t want your readers to weigh in with their take on the difference of opinions expressed in this debate, why did you bring it here? It was Twelve’s post. Why didn’t you just make a comment on her post instead of bringing the discussion to your blog and referencing Twelve’s blog? What was your intent? If you didn’t want a public debate, why didn’t you just take it up in e-mail with her? Of course it is your blog, Master, but you have put it out here open to public comment and I believe I have just as much right as any other person wandering cyberspace to express my opinion without being told “what it is or isn’t for me to take a POV on.”
And, yes, it is in inferred in your comments that people who dare to say the obvious “that the McCanns (or any other parents) who left “such young children alone’ were gambling (foolishly and unnecessarily) with their children’s well being just to have a bit to eat” also means we feel they deserve punishment. That’s apples and oranges. To say the Emperor has no clothes is not the same as to say they Emperor should be beheaded..
What I find “most distressing” is your kind of cavalier attitude about the issue of “leaving small children unattended” unnecessarily and for frivolous reasons. As for my futile efforts to reach your sense of common sense through my examples, I think I have to disagree again. The article you posted about the extent of pedophiles along with many well publicized cases of child abduction makes it plain that we live in a world with predators….even more dangerous than those in the jungle because at least we know what (who) are the predators in the jungle…but in our civilized world…it can be your nice next door neighbor. But just as you can live and thrive in a jungle, you can live in this civilized world without being frozen by fear…but you have to be aware, you have to have a certain level of vigilance…a certain level of common sense about the actions you take…the risks you take.
Yes, I agree that a babysitter is not risk free – but it would have been a reasonable risk! It would have been a responsible risk….especially if the parents were popping in every so often to check on them. If you can’t get a sitter you trust, you just don’t go!! Or, you go with the kids! That doesn’t take much insight or foresight….it’s just common sense. And that’s where you draw the line about risk when it comes to your children or any small child.
And finally, of course no parent is perfect. No one expected the McCanns or any other parent to be perfect. I myself was a latchkey kid because as a single mother my mom had to go to work in order to keep the roof over our heads but didn’t make enough money to also pay a sitter…but I was in fourth grade, picked up from school by a neighbor with her daughter and was in my own apt….but, sure, it was a risk, forced by necessity. I am no stranger to the fact that parents are not perfect or that risks are taken in raising children.
The McCanns are not being singled out. It’s just a high profile case. The villagers are not gathering to drive them out of town or calling for them to be punished…quite the opposite. People are being very supportive of them…and that’s as it should be. Yes, they have been unlucky, as you say…but they were also careless with what is most precious which contributed immensely to this bad luck. But it’s Maddy who is or has paid the highest price for this. So, since you think, that anyone who says it is irresponsible for people to leave their young children alone when they clearly have other better and more common sense choices available to them, is “unbelievably harsh” then, so be it, I’m unbelievably harsh then. I think you’d make a great Bush Republican. If you say you’re against the war…they tar you with “not being patriotic” and “not supporting the troops.” Again apples and oranges. I think you’ve been unbelievably irrational, hard headed and pompous. Z
Post a Comment