Please Look for this Little Girl and Pass on This Post (translate and cross post if Possible too)

On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:03:09 +0100, Penny Gaines wrote:

deja.blues wrote:

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.

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.

toypup wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:03:09 +0100, Penny Gaines wrote:

deja.blues wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Rosalie B. wrote in
:

toypup wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:03:09 +0100, Penny Gaines wrote:

deja.blues wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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

On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:02:42 GMT, Rosalie B. wrote:

toypup wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 00:03:09 +0100, Penny Gaines wrote:

deja.blues wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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
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.

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.

On Wed, 23 May 2007 11:57:16 -0400, Boliath
wrote:

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

On Thu, 24 May 2007 14:19:33 +0000 (UTC), enigma
wrote:

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

"Penny Gaines" wrote in message
...
deja.blues wrote:
"Boliath" wrote in message
...

deja.blues wrote:

"Carol T" wrote in message
groups.com...


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.

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.


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



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
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.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

On Thu, 24 May 2007 18:13:25 GMT, Stephanie wrote:

"Penny Gaines" wrote in message
...
deja.blues wrote:
"Boliath" wrote in message
...

deja.blues wrote:

"Carol T" wrote in message
egroups.com...


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.

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.


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



How did the abductor get into the room?

The window.

toypup wrote:

On Thu, 24 May 2007 18:13:25 GMT, Stephanie wrote:

"Penny Gaines" wrote in message
...
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

How did the abductor get into the room?

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.

On Thu, 24 May 2007 22:03:09 GMT, Rosalie B. wrote:

toypup wrote:

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

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.