Police stop plane just before take-off to rescue abducted 4-year-old girl

A man has been arrested on suspicion of child abduction after police stopped a plane flying to Romania.

Nottinghamshire Police said they tracked down a man to Heathrow Airport after receiving a report that a four-year-old girl had been taken.

They received a call at 16:57 GMT Thursday, and the flight to Bucharest was due to take off at 18:00.

The 32-year-old is known to the girl, who has been reunited with her mother, a spokesman said.

Latest news and stories from the East Midlands
Det Sgt Ruth Walker said it was "a hugely complex and challenging case", and thanked officers from the Metropolitan Police for their assistance.

"The plane was taxiing ready for take-off, but we were able to get there just in time before it took flight," she said.

"[It] then returned to the terminal and the man was arrested.

"If it wasn't for the swift coordinated multi-agency response there may have been a very different outcome."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-56049004

I wonder if he was her father trying to snatch her from the mother?
Glad they got the little girl back.

Romania! Not just fathers abduct little girls there.

Original Quill wrote:Romania!  Not just fathers abduct little girls there.

Not just fathers abduct little girls anywhere, and Romanians don't have any genetic prediliction for child abduction, for Christ's sake.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Romania!  Not just fathers abduct little girls there.

Not just fathers abduct little girls anywhere, and Romanians don't have any genetic prediliction for child abduction, for Christ's sake.

No...it's not genetic. It's just a bad habit of trafficking in women.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Romania!  Not just fathers abduct little girls there.

Not just fathers abduct little girls anywhere, and Romanians don't have any genetic prediliction for child abduction, for Christ's sake.

No...it's not genetic.  It's just a bad habit of trafficking in women.

Not nearly as bad a habit as they have in India, China, Pakistan and Venezuela, but I don't see you talking about people from those countries the way you talk about Eastern Europeans.

Canada apparently also has a big human trafficking problem, eh?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Romania!  Not just fathers abduct little girls there.

Not just fathers abduct little girls anywhere, and Romanians don't have any genetic prediliction for child abduction, for Christ's sake.

I often wonder if his wife had an affair with an Eastern European. The dude was some serious issues with them.

eddie wrote:I wonder if he was her father trying to snatch her from the mother?
Glad they got the little girl back.

It did say the kidnapper and girl knew each other..

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No...it's not genetic.  It's just a bad habit of trafficking in women.

Not nearly as bad a habit as they have in India, China, Pakistan and Venezuela, but I don't see you talking about people from those countries the way you talk about Eastern Europeans.

Canada apparently also has a big human trafficking problem, eh?

Isn't that whataboutism?  You are saying how about "India, China, Pakistan and Venezuela", but I don't hear you say this is wrong!  I would feel better if you were to admit that the practice is wrong, and then when the practice is amply condemned, change the subject to talk about where else it has spread...providing evidence, of course.

As certain as the US south has an issue with racism; or, say, the Irish have an issue with the English, and vice versa; the eastern Europeans have an issue with trafficking women.  It is not at all genetic; it is in their belief system.  Nonetheless, it is as certain metaphorically as a genetic issue...cultures can harbor beliefs and practices as easily as genes can harbor defects.  A metaphor is not exact equivalency; you don't need to confuse the two to see the point.

Of course it's wrong, but it's also wrong of you to act as though Eastern Europeans should be defined by human trafficking when plenty of other places have a worse human trafficking problem than Eastern Europe does.

Ben Reilly wrote:Of course it's wrong, but it's also wrong of you to act as though Eastern Europeans should be defined by human trafficking when plenty of other places have a worse human trafficking problem than Eastern Europe does.

The proof is in the pudding.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Not nearly as bad a habit as they have in India, China, Pakistan and Venezuela, but I don't see you talking about people from those countries the way you talk about Eastern Europeans.

Canada apparently also has a big human trafficking problem, eh?

Isn't that whataboutism?  You are saying how about "India, China, Pakistan and Venezuela", but I don't hear you say this is wrong!  I would feel better if you were to admit that the practice is wrong, and then when the practice is amply condemned, change the subject to talk about where else it has spread...providing evidence, of course.

As certain as the US south has an issue with racism; or, say, the Irish have an issue with the English, and vice versa; the eastern Europeans have an issue with trafficking women.  It is not at all genetic; it is in their belief system.  Nonetheless, it is as certain metaphorically as a genetic issue...cultures can harbor beliefs and practices as easily as genes can harbor defects.  A metaphor is not exact equivalency; you don't need to confuse the two to see the point.

And Californians are by and large idiots and liars.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Of course it's wrong, but it's also wrong of you to act as though Eastern Europeans should be defined by human trafficking when plenty of other places have a worse human trafficking problem than Eastern Europe does.

The proof is in the pudding.

You are eating some serious anti-eastern-European-pudding right now.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The proof is in the pudding.

You are eating some serious anti-eastern-European-pudding right now.

Not at all.  I am trying to educate on how to combat whataboutism.  You return to the abstract wrong involved, and condemn that first.  Then, if appropriate, you change the subject to where else the wrong is found.  Most of all, you don't abandon the wrong, and lose yourself in de minimis debate over who else engages in it.

A nation’s, or region’s zeitgeist cannot be simply swept away by our own oversensitivity.  Compare: it was the zeitgeist of Germany to practice Nazism from 1932-1944.  Millions died as a result.  Is it unfair to speak of it?  As philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."  Would we ignore this fact because it is insensitive?  When X commits sex crime Y, do we fail to indict because it would be insensitive?

As to eastern Europe, they have a habitual economic practice of trading in women.  According to Europol and the International Labour Organization, Belarus, Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine are among the most important source countries of human trafficking within Europe:

Wiki wrote:The selling of young women into sexual slavery has become one growing criminal enterprises in the European Union. While Human trafficking has existed for centuries all over the world, it has become an increasing concern for countries in the Balkan part of southern Europe since the fall of Communism. In 1997 alone as many as 175,000 young women from Russia, the former Soviet Union and Eastern and Central Europe were sold as commodities in the sex markets of the developed countries in Europe and the Americas. Economic hardship and promises of prosperity have left many individuals vulnerable to trafficking within their countries and to destinations in other parts of Europe and the world. The United Nations reports that 4 million people a year are traded against their will to work in one or another form of servitude.

 It's not genetic, but it is their zeitgeist.  To ignore it, is to bury your head in the sand.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

You are eating some serious anti-eastern-European-pudding right now.

Not at all.  I am trying to educate on how to combat whataboutism.  You return to the abstract wrong involved, and condemn that first.  Then, if appropriate, you change the subject to where else the wrong is found.  Most of all, you don't abandon the wrong, and lose yourself in de minimis debate over who else engages in it.

A nation’s, or region’s zeitgeist cannot be simply swept away by our own oversensitivity.  Compare: it was the zeitgeist of Germany to practice Nazism from 1932-1944.  Millions died as a result.  Is it unfair to speak of it?  As philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."  Would we ignore this fact because it is insensitive?  When X commits sex crime Y, do we fail to indict because it would be insensitive?

As to eastern Europe, they have a habitual economic practice of trading in women.  According to Europol and the International Labour Organization, Belarus, Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine are among the most important source countries of human trafficking within Europe:

Wiki wrote:The selling of young women into sexual slavery has become one growing criminal enterprises in the European Union. While Human trafficking has existed for centuries all over the world, it has become an increasing concern for countries in the Balkan part of southern Europe since the fall of Communism. In 1997 alone as many as 175,000 young women from Russia, the former Soviet Union and Eastern and Central Europe were sold as commodities in the sex markets of the developed countries in Europe and the Americas. Economic hardship and promises of prosperity have left many individuals vulnerable to trafficking within their countries and to destinations in other parts of Europe and the world. The United Nations reports that 4 million people a year are traded against their will to work in one or another form of servitude.

 It's not genetic, but it is their zeitgeist.  To ignore it, is to bury your head in the sand.

Trying to educate people?

No doubt folks are learning something about you.

Maddog wrote:Trying to educate people?

Yes, it's what I do.  I have taught at Berkeley, Rutgers University, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, and at the University of Arizona in Tucson.  Since becoming a trial attorney, I treat my work as trying to educate juries.

So, I think of my work, inevitably, as "educating".