The line from Government has always been that kidnapped ransoms are not paid because if the kidnappers make a payday from their actions, they will only do it the more.
I would assume that the position goes out the window if it is a member of your own family whose life is being threatened and the mother of journalist James Foley who was kidnapped and killed by ISIS recently has revealed that she had been threatened by the US government with charges of aiding terrorists if the family tried to raise funds to pay the £80m ransom for him.
'We were told that several times and we took it as a threat and it was appalling' Foley's mother Diane said, 'It was very upsetting because we were essentially told to trust that the way they were handling things would bring our son home'.
While i do understand the philosophy that kidnappers are not rewarded by receiving large sums of money, i do wonder just how keen they would be to refuse handing over the money to save their life if it was one of Obama's or Cameron's kids whose life was being threatened.
In an already horrendous situation, you don't need your own Government to start issuing threats but the Obama administration seems as subtle as a house brick in its dealings with most things.