Fatal accidents in the home versus abductions. Is there are comparison?

[Mr Gray]

You asked for a single example of a fatal accident in the home, which I was able to do without consulting Google as it had been on the news today.

I followed your instructions to the letter, you then tell me I'm making a fool of myself. I still don't get it.

Anyway, here's the statistics:
Every year there are approximately 4000 deaths as the result of a home accident. Around 120 of these are below 15 years and 1300 over 75

http://www.rospa.com/homesafety/adviceandinformation/general/facts-figures.aspx

The number of sucsessfull stranger abductions is 68.

http://tna.europarchive.org/20081023123012/homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r225.pdf


I can't find anything about the number of stranger abductions from the home, so the figures aren't quite like for like.

The accident figures are from 2002 and the abductions from 2002/3  they were the best set of data, if not the most recent.

They're all both from the uk.

Fatal accidents for children under the age of 15 =120
Successful stranger abductions =68.

I'm not going to suggest that you should have Googled it yourself before making your claim to avoid making a fool of yourself though, cause that's just mean!

Ive already seen this article and as I pointed out to you fatal accidents in the home re children in the vast majority of cases involve stairs or fires. No fire in PDL, no stairs in PDL.., making a stranger adduction far more likely...in your opening post you stated that the chance of  stranger abduction was miniscule..it isn't ..your figure Is 68 that's not miniscule

[icabodcrane]

Ive already seen this article and as I pointed out to you fatal accidents in the home re children in the vast majority of cases involve stairs or fires. No fire in PDL, no stairs in PDL.., making a stranger adduction far more likely...in your opening post you stated that the chance of  stranger abduction was miniscule..it isn't ..your figure Is 68 that's not miniscule

oh for God's sake  ! 

Please  ...  please  ...  don't present the case that young children who  are  left unattended  at home are more at risk  of stranger abduction that fatal accidents 

...  just for the sake of not making yourself look simple  ...  please don't do that

[Mr Gray]

oh for God's sake  ! 

Please  ...  please  ...  don't present the case that young children who  are  left unattended  at home are more at risk  of stranger abduction that fatal accidents 

...  just for the sake of not making yourself look simple  ...  please don't do that

Its not me saying that its the statistic supplied by the poster. Its called evidence

[icabodcrane]

Its not me saying that its the statistic supplied by the poster. Its called evidence

WHAT  ?

Are you claiming that  'statistically'   infants left alone  are more likely to be snatched from their bed by strangers than  they are to suffer serious or fatal injury  ? 

Is that what you are claiming  ? 

[Mr Gray]

WHAT  ?

Are you claiming that  'statistically'   infants left alone  are more likely to be snatched from their bed by strangers that they are to suffer serious or fatal injury  ? 

Is that what you are claiming  ?

It is actually what the evidence supports...even personal experience shows that although children have accidents at home it is unusual that these accidents are  fatal. fatal ones usually involve fires or stairs...none of these in the pdl appt. The figure of 68 for abductions is surprisingly high.
I don't expect you to understand a post based on logic..blind prejudice is your forte as you have regularly shown

[icabodcrane]

It is actually what the evidence supports...even personal experience shows that although children have accidents at home it is unusual that these accidents are  fatal. fatal ones usually involve fires or stairs...none of these in the pdl appt. The figure of 68 for abductions is surprisingly high.
I don't expect you to understand post based on logic..blind prejudice is your forte as you have regularly shown

So when  we were younger,  and our children were nippers,   if we'd gone round the corner to the Fisherman's Rest for the evening  (  it's only round the corner and we could easily have made  'checks'  on our infants every half hour or so  )  ...  we would have been putting them  more at risk of some stranger walking in and taking  one of them out of their bed and carrying them off into the darkness,  than we were off putting them at risk of waking up  (  in our absense )  and having an accident  ? 

Is that what you are saying  ?   

[Mr Gray]

So when  we were younger,  and our children were nippers,   if we'd gone round the corner to the Fisherman's Rest for the evening  (  it's only round the corner and we could easily have made  'checks'  on our infants every half hour or so  )  ...  we would have been putting them  more at risk of some stranger walking in and taking one one of them out of their bed and carrying them off into the darkness,  than we were off putting them at risk of waking up  (  in our absense )  and having an accident  ? 

Is that what you are saying  ?

Are you still asleep....we were discussing fatal accidents..now you change track and start to refer to accidents

[Cariad]

I did indeed give much the same links on the thread "The breathtaking hypocrisy of those that support the McCanns"  but they did not satisfy davel - mind you I don't see much that does satisfy him! 

The accident figures for young children are  the main reason why the NSPCC and government guidelines say that babies and toddlers should never be left alone, not the possibility of abduction which is relatively rare.   And the reason why it is felt that the McCanns, as doctors, should have known better is, IMO, because they should be aware of this through their training, let alone the likelihood of a GP experiencing this through his/her practice.  And add in the fact that a GP would be expected to report to the authorities any family they knew of leaving children in this way, and would be expected to attend subsequent case conferences.   So the likelihood of the McCanns not knowing this is considerably less that the likelihood of many other parents not knowing this (although common sense should tell you not to leave such young children out of sight and hearing anyway,  and especially when you know they have cried for you the night before)

I've just been to the other thread and had a look, there were some very interesting statistics in your link. one being that children of the ages 0-4 are most at risk.


Apologises for covering the same ground, I'm very new and wasn't aware that the figures had already been posted.

It is actually what the evidence supports...even personal experience shows that although children have accidents at home it is unusual that these accidents are  fatal. fatal ones usually involve fires or stairs...none of these in the pdl appt. The figure of 68 for abductions is surprisingly high.
I don't expect you to understand a post based on logic..blind prejudice is your forte as you have regularly shown

I concur that 68 stranger abductions is surprisingly high, however it is still half the number of fatal accidents in the home. Also please bear in mind that so far we had found no like for like statistics for abduction from the home/ accident in the home. it would be fairer to compare all accidents to all stranger abductions.

I have to do the school run now, However, when I return I shall try and find the relevant figures. I shall also try and find an accurate number of child abductions from the home.

[icabodcrane]

Are you still asleep....we were discussing fatal accidents..now you change track and start to refer to accidents

I can't let this go  ...  I can't  ...  because you are talking nonsense   ! 

Say it straight  ...  do you think that if parents leave infants  'home alone'  those infants are  MORE  at risk of some stranger walking in to their bedroom and carrying them off ,  than they are of waking up and suffering an accident  (  which   might    be fatal  ) 

A yes or no is necessary at this point

[Mr Gray]

I can't let this go  ...  I can't  ...  because you are talking shite  ! 

Say it straight  ...  do you think that if parents leave infants  'home alone'  those infants are  MORE  at risk of some stranger walking in to their bedroom and carrying them off ,  than they are of waking up and suffering an accident  (  which   might    be fatal  ) 

A yes or no is necessary at this point

ive already answered  this question this morning but you don't seem to have the intelligence to understand..lets keep it simple...stranger abductions..68....fatal accidents 120...source ..figures from post by cariad
If you factor out deaths from fires and stairs....which are the most common reasons for fatalities in the home abduction is much more likely

no stairs or fires in PDL so it is far more likely...that Maddie was abducted.. thats what Sy think as well

[icabodcrane]

ive already answered  this question this morning but you don't seem to have the intelligence to understand..lets keep it simple...stranger abductions..68....fatal accidents 120...source ..figures from post by cariad
If you factor out deaths from fires and stairs....which are the most common reasons for fatalities in the home abduction is much more likely

no stairs or fires in PDL so it is far more likely...that Maddie was abducted.. thats what Sy think as well

You do the McCanns no favours with this hysterical support that is beyond the realms of all rational thought

[stephen25000]

ive already answered  this question this morning but you don't seem to have the intelligence to understand..lets keep it simple...stranger abductions..68....fatal accidents 120...source ..figures from post by cariad
If you factor out deaths from fires and stairs....which are the most common reasons for fatalities in the home abduction is much more likely

no stairs or fires in PDL so it is far more likely...that Maddie was abducted.. thats what Sy think as well

More fantasy.

CITE Proof of abduction.

[Mr Gray]

You do the McCanns no favours with this hysterical support that is beyond the realms of all rational thought

its extremely rational and a s I have said it seems SY agree with me. The opening statement on this thread states that the chances of a stranger abduction is miniscule...that is wrong and dangerous and puts childrens lives at risk.

[icabodcrane]

its extremely rational and a s I have said it seems SY agree with me. The opening statement on this thread states that the chances of a stranger abduction is miniscule...that is wrong and dangerous and puts childrens lives at risk.

How ironic  ...  a fanatical supporter of the McCann school of parenting lecturing the forum on the dangers of  leaving children at risk

[stephen25000]

How ironic  ...  a fanatical supporter of the McCann school of parenting lecturing the forum on the dangers of  leaving children at risk

You could not make this behaviour up.

Fanaticism doesn't even come close.

There are far more appropriate terms.