Skip to main content

On the subject in hand: we all take risks every time we walk out of the door /cross the road/ get in our cars etc. etc. Where does one draw their 'sympathy' line in the sand re the level of risk taken when that risk doesn't pay off and someone ends up in serious trouble? Would one say: 'Oh well, you should have known that there will likely be one or two crazy mad drivers about, so I have no sympathy for your plight having been involved in that dreadful accident, you shouldn't have gone on the road'  or ' Keenan, McCarthy, Waite, you shouldn't have gone to Lebanon in the first place, you've only yourselves to blame' etc. etc.
For me, no matter what the level of risk taken or why, I'd still have compassion and sympathy for folk who seriously suffer as a result, so yes I have sympathy for the Chandler's and their dreadful ordeal, it must have been terrifying and deeply traumatic. 
FM
Last edited by Former Member
To set your minds and rest PP and Videostar. No ransom money was paid by our government. I thought you would have known that, but anyway. 1/3 (approx) was given by the Chandler`s family and friends. 2/3 (approx) was a combination of the Somali community in Britain and the Somali government.
No expense to our country. Sleep easy now. The Chandler`s haven`t for a long time.
Scotty
On the whole sympathy topic. One of my tutees (13 years old) turned up for registration this morning having walked to school in temperatures no higher than 4 degrees in a short sleeved shirt because his blazer was covered in paint after his brother pushed him against a freshly painted wall on the weekend. His mum has many kids by many different dads and not much of a grip on looking after any of them.

He arrived late literally blue with cold and tears streaming down his face. Now some could argue that it's his mum's fault for having so many kids she can't look after in the first place, some could argue that it's his own fault, at 13 he should be able to look after his clothes.

Me, I just wanted to give him a hug. Sympathy I guess is about ignoring the whys and wherefores and just feeling what it's like to be that other person, regardless of how they got there in the first place.

P.S. Don't worry Sponge it ended well before you threaten to drive up here and adopt him! We found a jumper in lost property for him to wear and I've spent half the night rubbing turps on his blazer. I've just got it out of the washing machine and not a paint drop left so all sorted.
skive
Reference:
To set your minds and rest PP and Videostar. No money was paid by our government. I thought you would have known that, but anyway. 1/3 (approx) was given by the Chandler`s family and friends. 2/3 was a combination of the Somali community in Britain and the Somali government. No expense to our country. Sleep easy now. The Chandler`s haven`t for a long time.

Not what some in the Somalian diplomatic service are saying tbf.
FM
Reference:
well i'm off to beddy byes.leaving those who want to debate about the chandlers to debate about the chandlers...............and those who want to debate about suicidal terrifying leaves to do just that...........nighty nights xxx..........
Night mate. xxxx I'm off too, was just waiting on the washing machine.

Still giving hugs out to all and sundry as I go.
skive
Reference:
On the whole sympathy topic. One of my tutees (13 years old) turned up for registration this morning having walked to school in temperatures no higher than 4 degrees in a short sleeved shirt because his blazer was covered in paint after his brother pushed him against a freshly painted wall on the weekend. His mum has many kids by many different dads and not much of a grip on looking after any of them.
God - poor little soul and thank god for people like you.,.
FM
Reference:
Sympathy I guess is about ignoring the whys and wherefores and just feeling what it's like to be that other person, regardless of how they got there in the first place.
In part I agree Skive but another part of me despairs of people who don't think of the consequences. I know the situation you had with the kid was serious but in some cases it can be life threatening and yet they carry on regardless.
Cagney
Reference:
On the subject in hand: we all take risks every time we walk out of the door /cross the road/ get in our cars etc. etc. Where does one draw their 'sympathy' line in the sand re the level of risk taken when that risk doesn't pay off and someone ends up in serious trouble? Would one say: 'Oh well, you should have known that there will likely be one or two crazy mad drivers about, so I have no sympathy for your plight having been involved in that dreadful accident, you shouldn't have gone on the road' or ' Keenan, McCarthy, Waite, you shouldn't have gone to Lebanon in the first place, you've only yourselves to blame' etc. etc. For me, no matter what the level of risk taken or why, I'd still have compassion and sympathy for folk who seriously suffer as a result, so yes I have sympathy for the Chandler's and their dreadful ordeal, it must have been terrifying and deeply traumatic.
Yes we do take risks every single day of our lives however we take calculated risks.  For example when crossing the rod you look and check there is nothing coming and then you cross - you wouldn't wait till a vehicle comes and then run out.  The risk the Chandlers took was very high and yes they have paid a terrible price for that however IMO they were wrong to take that risk - they rather stupidly put themself in a ridiculously risky situation and for that reason I am unable to be sympathetic towards them.
P
Reference:
Me, I just wanted to give him a hug. Sympathy I guess is about ignoring the whys and wherefores and just feeling what it's like to be that other person, regardless of how they got there in the first place.
I don't think we can really compare the two situations though - this was a child and yes I would have sympathy for him - he hasn't done anything wrong his mother has a responsibility to clothe him etc and she has failed in that duty but that isn't the childs fault.
P
Reference:
I did and tbf in nautical terms that isn't a massive distance - it was well documented about the equipment and capabilities these pirates had and their ability to cover huge areas.
You never replied but anyway...700 miles in nautical miles is 608.238 miles. ( google is my friend)
A huge area and a two country difference from Somalia. The Chandlers are intelligent seafaring people. They had invesigated before they set off...never knowing that the pirates would travel so far from the areas they`d pirated before. They were in the Seychelles..a safe area. Yes, the pirates have an ability to cover huge areas but they went much further than they had before. How were the Chandlers supposed to know they would do that? They wouldn`t endanger their lives on purpose for the sake of a jolly jaunt. They are the victims here. The victims of thugs.Thugs who kept an elderly couple in horrendous conditions for money. That money was paid to free them and I don`t give a damn where it came from! They`re free.

Welcome home Chandlers. Merry Xmas x
Scotty
Reference:
You never replied but anyway...700 miles in nautical miles is 608.238 miles. ( google is my friend) A huge area and a two country difference from Somalia. The Chandlers are intelligent seafaring people. They had invesigated before they set off...never knowing that the pirates would travel so far from the areas they`d pirated before. They were in the Seychelles..a safe area. Yes, the pirates have an ability to cover huge areas but they went much further than they had before. How were the Chandlers supposed to know they would do that? They wouldn`t endanger their lives on purpose for the sake of a jolly jaunt. They are the victims here. The victims of thugs.Thugs who kept an elderly couple in horrendous conditions for money. That money was paid to free them and I don`t give a damn where it came from! They`re free. Welcome home Chandlers. Merry Xmas x

For that I apologise though easy to miss the odd post when most people in a thread are having a go.

You say the Chandlers are "intelligent" people - I'm sorry but I would have to question this - for me if they were that intelligent they would never have ventured out there and would have realised that yes they may be some distance from the last priate attack however their proximity was still incredibly close when you conside the capabilities these groups possessed. 

Yes they are victims however they still put themselves in danger and for that they have to take some responsibility.  That money could have been used for far more useful things rather than for lining the pockets of criminals - due to their wreckless behaviour it was imo wasted.

P
Reference:
Yes they are victims however they still put themselves in danger and for that they have to take some responsibility.
Tell me, what would be good punishment for them in your opinion?
Would you like them to go on to TV and publicly apologise for being so reckless? Would you perhaps like Jeremy Kyle or some other "voice of the people" to publicly castigate them?
Would that help? Would you like them to admit full responsibility for their actions in front of the world's press?

Do you not think that perhaps a year in captivity may have channelled their thoughts into the "what if's?" Do you not think that there was not a single day when they did not berate themselves? Do you not think they have a lifetime of regret because his elderly father died and he did not have the chance to say goodbye?

Are you really so unaware that you cannot see that once the euphoria of being out has passed, they will  probably be full of regret for worrying their families?

I would like you to tell me what you think would be a good result here and what would make YOU think they had been suitably punished.
FM
Reference:
For that I apologise though easy to miss the odd post when most people in a thread are having a go. You say the Chandlers are "intelligent" people - I'm sorry but I would have to question this - for me if they were that intelligent they would never have ventured out there and would have realised that yes they may be some distance from the last priate attack however their proximity was still incredibly close when you conside the capabilities these groups possessed. Yes they are victims however they still put themselves in danger and for that they have to take some responsibility. That money could have been used for far more useful things rather than for lining the pockets of criminals - due to their wreckless behaviour it was imo wasted.
PP I could debate this with you until the cows come home but it won`t make any difference. As we say in Scotland "chaps" Picture two thumbs up - as in - I give up, no point in continuing.
Scotty
Reference:
IMO they were wrong to take that risk - they rather stupidly put themself in a ridiculously risky situation and for that reason I am unable to be sympathetic towards them.
Guess that's where the difference lays here PP....others will feel sympathy despite the risk taken....the sympathy is not conditional
FM
Reference:
Yes we do take risks every single day of our lives however we take calculated risks.  For example when crossing the rod you look and check there is nothing coming and then you cross - you wouldn't wait till a vehicle comes and then run out.  The risk the Chandlers took was very high and yes they have paid a terrible price for that however IMO they were wrong to take that risk - they rather stupidly put themself in a ridiculously risky situation and for that reason I am unable to be sympathetic towards them.
That's like saying a person (be it a child or adult)  took a risk crossing the road, and they got ran over, and we have no sympathy for them lying injured in hospital or in the morgue. No sympathy for them or their family.
Ev (Peachy)

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×