Lilyfestre, three things:-

1) Your refusal to at least apportion an element of blame to the parents suggested that you don't disapprove of what they did. If you don't say you disapprove, then surely it's implicit that you approve. If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologise.

2) I'm in total agreement that the rule is 'hands off', no debate about that, but why oh why dress and market your kid in a way that brings him/her to the attention of people who just can't keep their hands off? Without the pseudo-showbiz-bullshit that they subjected the girl to, surely it's doubtful that this perverted creep would have ever heard of her, and she'd be around now.

3) I find it difficult to believe that there was no financial motive on the part of the parents - sixty years of studying human nature has brought me to this conclusion - but clearly you know more about the 'business', or maybe the girl's parents, than I do.

Outta here now.
S:0)