If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You're arguement proves the opposite of what you are trying to say though, because as long as they THOUGHT they were doing to right thing, byt your agrguement they would not be to blame.
So answer the questions
If a woman dresses in a short skirt and low cut to, then is raped, is she partly to blame?
If you leave you phone on the passenger seat and it gets stolen, are you partly to blame?
If you cross the road and a drink driver runs you over, are you partly to blame?
If you leave your children with your parents and they abused them, are you to blame?
i dont get what u mean...sorry!
1. no because short skirts aint the cause/reason for rape...you could get raped wearing jeans and a hoodie. If you're a woman, you're at risk, and we cant help being women!
2. yes, if something is important to you, you keep it safe and look after it
3. no, you didnt do anything stupid/thoughtless to maximise your risk of getting hit. However, it would be different if YOU were drunk and crossed the road and got hit
Leave your garage door open and your spanking new Audi gets nicked, you're partly to blame, simple IMO
Like I said, lots of things could have happened that day to any of the 3 children. Cracked heads, broken noses, drinking something they shouldnt....3 kids uner 4 can get up to a lot of mischief in a short space of time, 2 parents of any intelligence should know that! The wort thing happened that day, but there were so many other disasterous outcomes that could have happened if the abduction didnt
so saying "only blah blah blah amount of children get abucted" is meanlingless, leaving children on their own is dangerous for a number of reasons....not just that one
anyway, i'm repeating myself a bit now, at the end of the day, it's just mine (and a lot of other people's) opinion
I merely mean you contradict yourself.
where?
there
I haven't read this full thread so i'm not sure whether you've answered this but would you leave your children alone in the house at that age?
It's not just the risk of abduction there are so many things that could've happened, if there'd been a fire the kids were alone and locked in for example.
I asked MoK this question earlier on - he said:
yes to all of those, in different amounts to each one of those scenarios you ahve some level of responsibility, you take a risk in crossing a road - the leaving the phone on the chair one is most blame and the crossing the road + rape scenarios, you have responsibility, in that you are responsible for when you enter the lottery, of actually winning it - only because you entered...
still dont see it...
you do what u think is best for your child, you're not to blame
(i.e you place your child in the care of someone you trust and they abuse your trust)
you do what suits you and not the child, you're [partly] to blame
(i.e go out to dinner and leave 3 kids locked in a room, alone)
cant see where i contradicted myself
i've looked
if you THINK you're doin right by your kid, it aint your fault, you tried to do what was best but things beyond your control happened
if you dont do whats best and keep your child as safe as you can/minimise the rsk as much as possible, you have to take some responsibility
whats contradictory about that?
they cant possibly have thought that by locking 3 kids under 4 in a hotel room alone was what was best for them
they can if they're crazy, which I believe they are, and I think they're liars too... but perhaps I'm cyncial? I actually agree with your point, just not how you said it, which I would have taken to mean something else.
I heard an interview with the Madeleine's father where he said he didn't think they'd done anything wrong. I mean wtf! Ok so they didn't kidnap her but they put her in a situation where someone else could (and did) and they weren't there to protect her. A child that young relies solely on the person whose care they are in to protect them from harm as far as is reasonably possible. Madeleine's parents didn't do that and imho they failed her.
1. So short dresses etc don't arouse attention from men?
2. So a thief should get off by using that defence?
3. Crossing a road doesn't carry a risk? More so if a car is coming?
Except you aren't. Certainly not in law. You should be able to leave it unlocked, wit hthe keys in the ignition. It's still stealing and last time I look that act was illegal.
Abduction is, quite simply, illegal. Whether the child is on their own or not.
And if you think that none of those could happen if the parents are in the same house then you are deluding yourself. The most dangerous place for a child to be, statistically, is in their own home. Next is in the street. On holiday is a long way short of that.
Except it isn;'t meaningless because the whole basis of your argument is about risk. You believe that her parents were taking a big risk. Yet the risk in crossing the road, whilst holding your childs hand, is much greater than the risk of them being abducted whilst you are across the road having a meal.
In the first example you see that risk as acceptable, in the second you say that this makes the parents blameworthy. I disagree.
So, would you support any defendant in court in using that as a defence?
It really worries me that people think that:
Dressing a certain way means that a woman is partly to blame for her rape.
It's your fault if someone steals your personal possession from a locked car.
That being run over by someone committing a serious offence is somehow your fault
Child abuse by a relative is the fault of the parents...
In each and every case there, a criminal act has taken place and yet the criminal is being told that it's not all their fault even though, in each case, without that act nothing bad has happened - someone has gone out, someone has left their phone in a car, someone crossed a road and someone asked their parents to babysit.
Fucking hell, why have a justice system at all?
The children are at a much greater risk of becoming in danger if the parents aren't there to protect them. Yes of course things can happen to your kids when you are there but does that mean you should put them at greater risk?
Your argument holds no water with me tbh, nor with any parents i've spoken to since madeleine's disappearance.
i think if a woman dresses provocatively, shes asking for male attention, but that is not the same as asking for rape. Rape doesnt have anything to do with that.
If you leave valuables in full view of people, thats gonna be mighty tempting for any dodgy person walking past. Own fault there. No it shouldnt be used as a defence by the person who nicked it, but it is asking for trouble.
No, that's not what I said.
The blame for the abduction lies with the person who carried out the abduction, no-one else. It was that persons actions which make this a case. Without those actions it's a story about children being left alone.
It would be the fault of the person who broke in. No-one force them to, it wasn't a requirement, it's certainly no defence to say "well the kids were on their own so I thought that I'd help myself" is it?
But the parents being there wouldn't offer a cast iron 100% guarantee that the child is safe either. Someone could still break in and abduct the child.
It is the actions of the criminal which makes all the difference here.
Is it really hard to understand that without the person doing the abduction there is no abduction?
The risk is zero, without the abductor.
But it has been used in defence cases in the past - "well guv she lead me on..." which is my point.
It may be a temptation (just as a semi-naked woman might be) but no-one has to act on that temptation and it certainly wouldn't reduce the sentence from the court.
The minute that you apportion a percentage to blame to someone other than the perpetrator of the criminal act, you are in effect offering some justification for that act and room for mitigation or defence. To me that is unacceptable.
No-one forces the criminal to act in that way, to commit that crime, it is a voluntary act.
I would not have acted in the same way as Maddie's parents. It's not the way I parent myself. But to suggest that their actions are in some way to blame fo her abduction completely misses the whole issue of the fact that the criminal act of abduction was not theirs.
Those quotes are contradictory.
Now, if we want to talk about the criminal act of neglect...
They're not though, more than one person can be at fault. I think most people will agree that whilst the abductor is the one to blame for taking Madeleine, the parents were at fault for leaving her.
Again you contradict yourself.
If the abductor is to blame for the abduction then the abductor is to blame for the abduction. The parents, to our knowledge, aren't the ones who abducted her.