Mums & Dads and anyone else, give me your opinion!

[wiltshiremead]

Do you think that the following person would make a good candidate for an ambassador for missing children?

1. Leaves small children (under the age of 5) on their own at home
2. Subsequently, one child goes either missing or possibly dead

[chiguire]

You provide no context for your poll.
I googled "ambassador for missing children," and I encountered the Kate McCann case. Is this what you are talking about.

I don't even know what an ambassador for missing children is. Furthermore, I do not know enough about the case of Kate McCann to pass judgement. It stated that she was a suspect in the case, meaning not convicted...

[wiltshiremead]

chiguire,
It is. Unbelievable isn't it!?
Ambassador means someone who speaks out for missing children.
To me, it's equivalent of a child molester becoming a spokes person for children's safety

Although I have my opinion about what happened, I don't if her daughter is still alive somewhere or dead. But the fact is she left her children alone.
That doesn't sounds like a responsible parent to me.

[fatbloke]

Originally Posted by wiltshiremead

Do you think that the following person would make a good candidate for an ambassador for missing children?

1. Leaves small children (under the age of 5) on their own at home
2. Subsequently, one child goes either missing or possibly dead

Well as chiguire points out, you don't actually say who you're alluding to ?

Though if it is the McCann woman, it depends on what she's expected to do.

We (my partner, an infant school teacher and me of course) have already thought, that they have paid for their stupidity many times over. And yes, you'd think educated, middle class people like her and the husband would have made a more considered choice, than too leave the kids in bed and then pop round to the friends for drinks and food.

People do stupid, thoughtless things all the time. Yet when challenged about them, it's the challenger who's in the wrong.

Does that make her (presumably) the best person too speak about such issues ? Don't know.

Just take it for what it is, political nonsense, so that they, and their friends/associates think that the government still gives a toss. They don't, they just worry about where the next vote is coming from. It's just another tabloid, red top headline POS!

p.s. Oh, and if you put a vague location on your profile, you might get better comments/points of view. I'm presuming that your username, means that you're probably in Wiltshire somewhere, but there might be a place with the same name in the US !

Equally, you may also get other, more localised assistance with any threads, posts, questions you may have etc.....

[wiltshiremead]

fatbloke,
I don't know what my username's got to do with it!?
It's not about where I live. It doesn't matter if I am this reply from columnbia or wiltshire or anywhere else.

I just don't think people who abuse children or act irresponsible (regardless of high level of education and status in the world) should be a spokes person. It's just my opinion, is that OK?

[Penguinetti]

Originally Posted by wiltshiremead

fatbloke,
I don't know what my username's got to do with it!?
It's not about where I live. It doesn't matter if I am this reply from columnbia or wiltshire or anywhere else.

I just don't think people who abuse children or act irresponsible (regardless of high level of education and status in the world) should be a spokes person. It's just my opinion, is that OK?

I believe my colleague here was only giving you some helpful advice as an aside rather than a central point. Nothing to get upset about, he was just merely pointing out that this is news that many outside of the UK have not heard about, and if members on the forum knew where you were from, they might be able to deduce a little better who you were referring to.

Also, he was only stating his own opinions on the matter as well, seeing as how you posted the question up. You are more than allowed (and welcome, even!) to have an opinion that disagrees. I do not think it was his intention to offend you or anything of the sorts.

Having said that, I have very little opinion on the matter because this is the first I've ever heard of what happened. All I know is, it is a shame to have such a tragedy happen to any child.

[wiltshiremead]

The reason I didn't post the person's name in the first place was that it shouldn't matter. It's like saying, if it's the priminister, he/she is OK to steal openly but others are not. It's about principle and it should apply to all thus it doesn't matter if THE person was Kate Mccann or not. That is my point.

[Penguinetti]

I see what you're saying, and it makes sense when you say that.

I have, however, noticed that people don't typically feel comfortable (or maybe it's just that curiosity gets the best of them) to answer a very abrupt question without a back story. Although it probably wouldn't make a difference whether or not it was the president, people might be inclined to change their answers if

a) if the person screwed up once, and it cost them dearly, vs someone who screws up all the time and doesn't give a crap


An analogy would be to say the All Blacks rugby are crap because the didn't make it to the 2007 World Cup finals. A lot of people would tend to disagree simply because the all blacks are, in fact, a great team who just had a bad run with france.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[fatbloke]

Originally Posted by wiltshiremead

fatbloke,
I don't know what my username's got to do with it!?
It's not about where I live. It doesn't matter if I am this reply from columnbia or wiltshire or anywhere else.

It's connected with the amount and type of news coverage that you will have exposed too, i.e. if it is the McCanns that you allude to, well there's been much greater coverage here than there has been in mainland Europe and the US, along with the opinions about what happened as to whether their actions might have been responsible or not.

I just don't think people who abuse children or act irresponsible (regardless of high level of education and status in the world) should be a spokes person. It's just my opinion, is that OK?

Of course, we're all entitled to take a view on something like this, though I see a huge distinction between those who abuse children and those who just act irresponsibly.

Yet, when you think back, it's not that long ago that people used to leave their doors unlocked, with their kids playing in the garden, etc, while they would have "popped down to the shops", with no problems whatsoever.

These days, we live in a so called "progressive liberal society" where the levels of exposure to news, media, etc are that high, that while "these people" (that's the strange types, paedophiles and persons who are considered "persona non grata" in society) have always existed, just that now we are more aware of their presence.

The level of society that someone is at (or considered to be) is quantifiable. Whether it's their employment status and type, whether it's educational level, or even the older methods of class stratification that are still present (yet of a lesser relevance, despite their continuing existence) in society.

So have occurrences of this nature become higher or are they basically at the same level given the increases in levels of population here ? Don't know. I'm not a statistician.

Or are we likely to want to condemn those who still allow their kids to act/behave like they did when young, only to find that something happens that now makes us point the finger and apportion blame of some sort ? It appears that the later is the most likely.

I'm no christian, but as I suspect that (presuming that I'm alluding to the correct person) the person involved here will have paid for not "getting it right" many times over, even though nobody has been caught and convicted for the original offense. So if any, tiny amount of good, can come of the family involvement and assist, even one child, then that's fine by me.

But hey! this is in "the hive" so lets leave it as "an agree to disagree" thing and have another virtual glass of mead........

[fatbloke]

Originally Posted by wiltshiremead

The reason I didn't post the person's name in the first place was that it shouldn't matter. It's like saying, if it's the priminister, he/she is OK to steal openly but others are not. It's about principle and it should apply to all thus it doesn't matter if THE person was Kate Mccann or not. That is my point.

Fair enough.

I'm trying to understand your stand point ?

There will always be inequity in society. Here more than most IMO, as the way law is developed, is manifestly unconstitutional (erm, actually, we don't have one - it's irony).

For example, who is worse ? The man who threatens to rob a bank/post office/bookmakers with an imitation gun, for the poultry sum of a couple of grand, or the insurance services provider who sells useless policy protections against this or that for many, many millions ?

Is one more guilty than another ?

The perceived armed robber, would often, if caught, be imprisoned for a number of decades, yet the white collar criminals fraud offenses are often seen as "victimless" and/or offenses against the system not the person and receive, consequently, lower sentences, often not requiring any offender to serve time. Just for the company concerned to say "sorry, here's some compensation".......

To have included a back story, or even a link might have put it more into context

p.s. I'm not trying to be controversial, and certainly not display any rudeness. I just notice that questions of this nature, just like any other question of a philosophical ilk,are neither right, nor wrong. That can be seen and/or answered from more than one standpoint, or that just because something may be seen as common sense, or believed by a great number of people, doesn't make it right.

After all, there's a massive difference between "why are we here" and "what does it all mean", and what is right, situation/person/scenario A or situation/person/scenario B ? when compared to something that has an accurate/scientific/reproducible answers.