# Bulger killer back inside



## Part 2 (Mar 2, 2010)

Just heard this on radio 6, John Venables back inside for breaking terms of release.

Can't see anything online yet though.


----------



## Cloo (Mar 2, 2010)

Well, the terms of release are likely to be pretty strict... wouldn't read too much into it yet.


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 2, 2010)

Oh I know, my first thought was, "maybe he's not in Australia then"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8546528.stm


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 2, 2010)

I heard of someone who was out on licence and got put back inside for nicking a pint of milk...it's one foot wrong and banged up again.


----------



## Upchuck (Mar 2, 2010)

What happens now?  Does he get a set time to serve?


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 2, 2010)

Upchuck said:


> What happens now?  Does he get a set time to serve?




He was on license for life so theoretically he could be held indefinitely.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 2, 2010)

I thought he had a different identity now. Isn't this going to fuck that up a bit? Anyway, on a brighter note, the Yorkshire Ripper is due for parole next year.


----------



## T & P (Mar 2, 2010)

Well the Scum and the Mail will have a field day with this...


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 2, 2010)

Chip Barm said:


> Oh I know, my first thought was, "maybe he's not in Australia then"



I received a hysterical chain-letter-esque email petition once stating that they were being released, getting new identities and lives in Australia.

I did a group reply pointing out that they had been released three years ago and there was no mention of Australia...


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 2, 2010)

Anybody seen a film called Boy A?

Watched it at the weekend and it's based on a child killer (killed a child whilst a child) who gets a new identity and then outed. Worth a watch.


----------



## Dovydaitis (Mar 2, 2010)

there was rumours that one of them was in Hull when i was nursing a few years back. Apparently a 'scouse family' had been moved in and there were rumblings in the social services.

nothing ever came of it.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 2, 2010)

How much support was Mr Venables given post-release? If it wasn't constant and intensive, it's little wonder that he ended up being thrown back inside.


----------



## citygirl (Mar 2, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Anybody seen a film called Boy A?
> 
> Watched it at the weekend and it's based on a child killer (killed a child whilst a child) who gets a new identity and then outed. Worth a watch.



Yeah, watched it on seesaw last week. excellent film, highly recommend it


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 2, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Anybody seen a film called Boy A?
> 
> Watched it at the weekend and it's based on a child killer (killed a child whilst a child) who gets a new identity and then outed. Worth a watch.



Yeah, good film that. 

Still on 4od


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 2, 2010)

I think I read the book...not sure though if it's the same story.


----------



## paulhackett (Mar 2, 2010)

There was an interesting article in the Times a few back about their rehabilitation. Little of course about the time after parole.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article688083.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1


----------



## treelover (Mar 2, 2010)

> Well the Scum and the Mail will have a field day with this...




They would dearly love to 'out' the two of them


----------



## soam (Mar 2, 2010)

I heard that one of the boys had attacked his girlfriend in Ireland and was back inside for that.


----------



## N_igma (Mar 2, 2010)

soam said:


> I heard that one of the boys had attacked his girlfriend in Ireland and was back inside for that.



Apparentally one of them lived in the village beside mine.  I mean, who the fuck makes this shit up!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Mar 2, 2010)

> Venables' solicitor, Laurence Lee, told the BBC: "He could have been recalled on licence if he committed an offence, it could be that he returned to Merseyside, it could be he might have approached the family.
> 
> "There is no evidence so far that he did any of these things."
> 
> ...



.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 2, 2010)

Would it put Mr Venables at risk to say what the breach of conditions was? 

Depends on the breach, I guess.


----------



## longdog (Mar 2, 2010)

N_igma said:


> Apparentally one of them lived in the village beside mine.  I mean, who the fuck makes this shit up!



Apparently one of them is now in The Village People.

I read it on the internet* so it must be true.


*may not be true.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 2, 2010)

If it was an offence against a child, he will never be released again.

For anything else, the punishment should be exactly as anyone else should get, it would be wrong to conflate the two offences, and sentence on the former.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 2, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> For anything else, the punishment should be exactly as anyone else should get, it would be wrong to conflate the two offences, and sentence on the former.


Agreed. Sadly, a life licence not only allows but requires offences to be conflated. No one should be put on one for a crime they committed at the age of 10.


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 2, 2010)

Even if its killing a small boy via a sustained attack?


(just interested in your train of thought btw, not trolling)


----------



## little_legs (Mar 2, 2010)

what would be considered an insignificant breach of release terms? is there such a thing? 

essentially, what i am trying to say is that an unpaid parking ticket can result in a criminal record which will be shown in a CRB check and can result in a job applicant be refused a job offer. not paying a parking ticket on time is no tax fraud for example.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 2, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Agreed. Sadly, a life licence not only allows but requires offences to be conflated. No one should be put on one for a crime they committed at the age of 10.



You may or may not be night.  There are many hundreds of thousands, even millions, in the UK who would dispute that.  In fact, that view is probably in the minority.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 2, 2010)

AverageJoe said:


> Even if its killing a small boy via a sustained attack?
> 
> 
> (just interested in your train of thought btw, not trolling)


Yes. If the killers of James Bulger had been a year younger, they'd have been below the age of criminal responsibility, and couldn't have been tried. The severity of a crime can't define the culpability of the people who committed it.


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 2, 2010)

Just been watching on the news, and under the terms of his release there were a whole bunch of conditions that he could not ever do, otherwise he would be bought back and put inside.

These include things like

- contacting the Bulgers
- contacting the other guy sent down
- going to Liverpool

and a whole bunch of other unspecified terms.

So, it not like a parking ticket LittleLegs. Its more about a kid, who for whatever reason battered a toddler to death, and being released on the understanding that he would never do any of the list of things they said he cant again (sorry, thats not good English).

And apparently he has breached one of these, so he is back inside.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 2, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> You may or may not be night.  There are many hundreds of thousands, even millions, in the UK who would dispute that.  In fact, that view is probably in the minority.


True, that.


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 2, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Yes. If the killers of James Bulger had been a year younger, they'd have been below the age of criminal responsibility, and couldn't have been tried. The severity of a crime can't define the culpability of the people who committed it.



OK. I find it interesting and tragic at the same time, which is why i asked.

Mind you, according to your own quote, they *were* old enough to be tried. Adding caveats such as 'ifs' and 'buts' can be applied to Bulger too - as in  'if he hadnt have been led out of a shopping precinct, subjected to repeat attacks over a period of time and then murdered.'

I guess there is much more to read into it that a mind like mine can comprehend, (by which I mean, I know mostly the different between right and wrong and act accordingly, but have no knowledge or experience of things like this, but am willing to listen and be educated whilst asking more questions), so thats why I was asking


----------



## Azrael (Mar 2, 2010)

AverageJoe said:


> Mind you, according to your own quote, they *were* old enough to be tried.


In English and Welsh law, yes. I disagree with the law, and an overnight switch from one extreme (no responsibility) to the other (full responsibility). (Scotland says its OK to try eight year olds, unless it's been changed, recently. So this isn't even agreed in the British Isles!)


----------



## Azrael (Mar 2, 2010)

AverageJoe said:


> I guess there is much more to read into it that a mind like mine can comprehend, (by which I mean, I know mostly the different between right and wrong and act accordingly, but have no knowledge or experience of things like this, but am willing to listen and be educated whilst asking more questions), so thats why I was asking


I've no knowledge in it, either, beyond reading up on the case, and talking to professionals (off-duty  ) about it. I just see a contradiction between denying rights like voting, or even signing up for credit, but imposing the full weight of criminal responsibility.


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 2, 2010)

Thanks Azrael. I see what you mean about the 'no responsibility/full responsibility' thing - never thought about it that way, but then how would you implement it?

Up to age 8, no responsibility, 8-10 you can shoplift or steal cars and graffiti, 10-14, anything but murder blah blah

Its a fucking tricky one to work out innit.


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 2, 2010)

Sometimes I just yearn for the days that when I was 10 all I was interested in was going to B&Q to spend my paper round money on buying pram wheels for the Go Kart I was building in the garage.

And then breaking it first time out when the suspension broke cos I was using dads cut off MDF pieces, and dragging it back home to fix.

*reminisces*


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 2, 2010)

Azrael said:


> I've no knowledge in it, either, beyond reading up on the case, and talking to professionals (off-duty  ) about it. I just see a contradiction between denying rights like voting, or even signing up for credit, but imposing the full weight of criminal responsibility.



It wasn't a very normal murder even by child murdering standards though.  I'm not sure that, even now, the press has ben able to report that freely on it.

I would have thought that if either of them had gone near Liverpool they'd have been lucky to get out alive if there had been the slightest awareness by the local populace


----------



## Azrael (Mar 2, 2010)

AverageJoe said:


> Up to age 8, no responsibility, 8-10 you can shoplift or steal cars and graffiti, 10-14, anything but murder blah blah


There used to be a middle-ground between 10-14, but Labour abolished it. 

So now, it's "commit murder aged nine and 11 months, no responsibility" and "commit murder aged 10 and one month, show trial and life license, sonny". 


AverageJoe said:


> Sometimes I just yearn for the days that when I was 10 all I was interested in was going to B&Q to spend my paper round money on buying pram wheels for the Go Kart I was building in the garage.


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 2, 2010)

The press stil arent allowed to report on it, hence the only pictures they can show is of them as kids, due to the relcation and new identies


----------



## Azrael (Mar 2, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> It wasn't a very normal murder even by child murdering standards though.  I'm not sure that, even now, the press has ben able to report that freely on it.


I've read pretty graphic reports. Suffice to say it was horrific. But like I said, defining culpability by a crime's awfulness is a bad road to go down, however tempting. 


> I would have thought that if either of them had gone near Liverpool they'd have been lucky to get out alive if there had been the slightest awareness by the local populace


Yep. Not at all helped by the frothing witch-hunt the press stirred up. (Didn't they go after the _Child Play_ movies at one point?)


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2010)

little_legs said:


> what would be considered an insignificant breach of release terms? is there such a thing?
> 
> essentially, what i am trying to say is that an unpaid parking ticket can result in a criminal record which will be shown in a CRB check and can result in a job applicant be refused a job offer. not paying a parking ticket on time is no tax fraud for example.


Do you have a link for this, because it seems very unlikely.

Unpaid parking tickets are a civil offence, no? CRB is a _criminal _record check. If they did count, surely there'd be very few teachers still allowed to teach?


----------



## pogofish (Mar 2, 2010)

Chip Barm said:


> Oh I know, my first thought was, "maybe he's not in Australia then"
> 
> Never has been. Both in Scotland.


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 2, 2010)

Them teachers - they not know how to park!!!!!!!!!!! grrrr

*shakes fist*


----------



## little_legs (Mar 2, 2010)

ymu said:


> Do you have a link for this, because it seems very unlikely.
> 
> Unpaid parking tickets are a civil offence, no? CRB is a _criminal _record check. If they did count, surely there'd be very few teachers still allowed to teach?



don't have a link, no. but is a breach of terms a more or less a broad notion of an array of actions one might take that would be classified as a breach of terms ranging from somewhat acceptable to totally unacceptable?  could this guy be locked up for doing something like not signing in somewhere at a stipulated hour/date?


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2010)

pogofish said:


> Never has been. Both in Scotland.


And how do you know this? And if you do genuinely know this, are you not breaking confidentiality by revealing it?


----------



## ymu (Mar 2, 2010)

little_legs said:


> don't have a link, no. but is a breach of terms a more or less a broad notion of an array of actions one might take that would be classified as a breach of terms ranging from somewhat acceptable to totally unacceptable?  could this guy be locked up for doing something like to not signing in somewhere at a stipulated hour/date?


I have no idea what that means, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with unpaid parking fines showing up on a criminal record check.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 2, 2010)

http://www.wirral.gov.uk/LGCL/100011/200072/471/content_0000750.html



> The Road Traffic Act 1991 introduced the concept of Council’s undertaking enforcement of parking management schemes. This system was called Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE). Parking ‘offences’ became ‘contraventions’ and parking attendants employed by the Local Authority, issued (civil) Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) where previously traffic wardens employed by the Police, undertook the enforcement and issued (criminal) Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN).


----------



## little_legs (Mar 2, 2010)

ymu said:


> I have no idea what that means, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with unpaid parking fines showing up on a criminal record check.



yeah, ok, i guess i comparing two incomparables. just not sure how to take this guy's actions. i mean, it's still unknown what he has actually done and i hope he has not done something awful.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 2, 2010)

They should release the details, unless doing so would somehow compromise his new identity. As ever, secrecy just fuels wild suspicions, especially in a case like this.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 2, 2010)

little_legs said:


> yeah, ok, i guess i comparing two incomparables. just not sure how to take this guy's actions. i mean, it's still unknown what he has actually done and i hope he has not done something awful.



Have to say it was the other one that was the evil little git as far as I remember.


----------



## little_legs (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Have to say it was the other one that was the evil little git as far as I remember.



i heard the same on radio 4 today, i think they had the case prosecutor on air who said that he was rather surprised to see this particular guy in trouble


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Have to say it was the other one that was the evil little git as far as I remember.


That was certainly the impression given in most of the media reporting, and seems to be the opinion of the coppers involved, but it's not necessarily a fair assessment.

He could have been done for shop-lifting. There's no reason to assume he's done something "evil" on the information available so far.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

little_legs said:


> i heard the same on radio 4 today, i think they had the case prosecutor on air who said that he was rather surprised to see this particular guy in trouble



I think he was more of a simpleton whereas the other one was always in trouble and tended to bully him - hence why he probably went along with him.

That's what I remember anyway - plus the other one had a face you wanted to punch


----------



## weltweit (Mar 3, 2010)

John Venables (the other was Robert Thompson) Both released in 2001 on licence. Venables is now 27.


----------



## little_legs (Mar 3, 2010)

ymu said:


> ....He could have been done for shop-lifting. There's no reason to assume he's done something "evil" on the information available so far.



that's what i am thinking, he could have been detained for something petty. 



gunneradt said:


> I think he was more of a simpleton whereas the other one was always in trouble and tended to bully him - hence why he probably went along with him.
> 
> That's what I remember anyway - plus the other one had a face you wanted to punch



oh dear... a simpleton gets a life then


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

little_legs said:


> that's what i am thinking, he could have been detained for something petty.
> 
> 
> 
> oh dear... a simpleton gets a life then



depends what he's not allowed to do

maybe - it's a tough world


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2010)

the "caring in the slightest" thing is escaping me

perhaps some poster could help


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2010)

I keep reading Bulger as Budgie.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

ymu said:


> Do you have a link for this, because it seems very unlikely.
> 
> Unpaid parking tickets are a civil offence, no? CRB is a _criminal _record check. If they did count, surely there'd be very few teachers still allowed to teach?



Enhanced CRBs show all sorts of things that aren't criminal records. They can record, for example, crimes you've been accused of, but never convicted of (or even tried - or even arrested for), if they're considered relevant. 

But that doesn't automatically mean a job will be denied. If a parking ticket shows up on a CRB (it might, it might not) then it's very unlikely anyone but a traffic warden would lose a job opportunity because of it.


----------



## Dancin_Fairy (Mar 3, 2010)

i dont think they ever should have been released, kids or not.

There is a fine line between sanity and insanity.

Both should still b locked up in an mentl health institution and the workers there are equipped enough to work with them.

A complete fucking disgrace imo.


----------



## killer b (Mar 3, 2010)

oh fuck off. and learn to spell.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 3, 2010)

little_legs said:


> essentially, what i am trying to say is that an unpaid parking ticket can result in a criminal record which will be shown in a CRB check and can result in a job applicant be refused a job offer. not paying a parking ticket on time is no tax fraud for example.


As has been said, parking tickets are no longer criminal offences and do not lead to a criminal record.

Not all criminal convictions show on an ordinary CRB check anyway - only unspent ones (see the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974) 

All convictions, even if spent, may show on an _enhanced_ CRB check (available only for the more sensitive jobs), along with non-conviction informaton (e.g. "suspected of" offences never charged, intelligence) _if_ considered by the disclosing body (i.e. the one holding the info) to be _relevant_ to the reason for which the enhanced CRB check is being completed.

And even if something is on a CRB result it _doesn't_ mean you don't get the job or role - it is _information_ provided to the potential employer who must then take it into account in making a _decision_.  The fact that a CRB is not "clean" doesn't actually mean anything in and of itself (though fuckwitted idiots who don't understand the system they are operating and who are scared / incapable of making the decisions they are paid to make) frequently think that it does  ).


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 3, 2010)

little_legs said:


> could this guy be locked up for doing something like not signing in somewhere at a stipulated hour/date?


Conditions of life licences are not as trivial as this.  You are confusing them with bail conditions which frequently have a signing condition.

There may well be conditions such as compliance with probation or whatever is considered necessary to maintain their safe condition, and that broad condition may include stuff like keeping appointments ... but the aim of the conditions is to ensure that someone who is basically considered to be becoming a danger to the public again can be recalled to custody if they do not cooperate with efforts to keep them safe.

Recall is NOT done lightly and a single instance of failing to keep an appointment or something would not be sufficient to result in recall unless there were very exceptional circumstances surrounding it.  Usually there will be a string of breaches dealt with by the probation service, etc. by bollockings and warnings before they conclude that recall is the only option.


----------



## longdog (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> i dont think they ever should have been released, kids or not.
> 
> There is a fine line between sanity and insanity.
> 
> ...


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 3, 2010)

little_legs said:


> i hope he has not done something awful.


One distinct possibility is that the recall is due to the alleged commission of another offence .. in which case details _can't_ be released if that alleged offence awaits trial because of the laws of _sub judice_.

As usual the internet demands immediate answers and sees conspiracies if they are not instantly gven by the authorities but the real world does not allow that to be done whilst maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system and an appropriate level of privacy, etc. for individuals.



Azrael said:


> They should release the details, unless doing so would somehow compromise his new identity. As ever, secrecy just fuels wild suspicions, especially in a case like this.


Just like that ...


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 3, 2010)

scifisam said:


> If a parking ticket shows up on a CRB (it might, it might not) then it's very unlikely anyone but a traffic warden would lose a job opportunity because of it.


It won't.  Records are not kept in any system which is available to an enhanced CRB check.  As they are administered locally, it would mean asking _every_ parking authority in the UK if they had any information for every enhanced CRB check...

They are also attached to _vehicles_ and registered keepers not individual drivers.  Even DVLA driver records are not routinely checked as part of the enhanced CRB checks so far as I am aware.


----------



## Pingu (Mar 3, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> the "caring in the slightest" thing is escaping me
> 
> perhaps some poster could help


 

nope, sorry. my careometer seems to be malfunctioning

eta

no thats not strictly true.

*IF* (notice capitals and bold etc)  the guy had genuinly been rehabilitated and was leading a "normal"* life then yeah it may twitch a little but up here we are reknowned for having long memories and, if i was being honest, a bit of a chip on our shoulders. things like this, hillsborough, some strike in 1841 etc take on a life of their own and people seem NEVR to forget or forgive. the lads that killed rhys jones for example will face a hard time even if in 50 yrs time they return to liverpool. diito these two. they could be in their 90s, have lived a perfect life saving kittens and solving world hunger. but in liverpool they will forever be parriahs and remembered for ony one thing


----------



## starfish2000 (Mar 3, 2010)

I heard a rumour in the early 2000's that one of them was ast Nottingham Uni doing Fine Art and had a handler with him keeping an eye on him.

Im not sure how you atone for something like this. Theres a world of difference between killing another child during horseplay that went wrong comparing that to subjecting said child to real horrific prolonged torture.....how do you come back from that and lead a normal life.....Im unsure.


----------



## Pingu (Mar 3, 2010)

well i bet hes currently shitting himself - praying that hes not outed. or hes on the rules already


----------



## Dancin_Fairy (Mar 3, 2010)

did i say something wrong?.....or irrelevant lol?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> i dont think they ever should have been released, kids or not.
> 
> There is a fine line between sanity and insanity.
> 
> ...



You certainly are.


----------



## FoxyRed (Mar 3, 2010)

They were children at the time and we do not know any of the details or information how what is happening at the moment. What they did was inaccusable but they were children. 
We dont know what they are like as individuals today. 
I hope they are rehabilitated and remourseful but who knows.


----------



## longdog (Mar 3, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> They were children at the time...



And that's the main point as far as I'm concerned.

They were a product of their upbringing and while I don't think 'he came from a broken home' is much in the way of a defence for an adult the ability to _rise above_ your upbringing is very much dependant on age.

If you're 25 years old and going around battering and murdering people you know what you're doing is wrong (excepting serious mental health issues) regardless of your upbringing. At the age of ten the issue is far, far less clear cut. They might have been nasty, vicious little thugs but they weren't the devil or even demons... They were kids.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

...with appalling violent neglectful families...it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Baby P would have ended up like Thompson & Venables.


----------



## fogbat (Mar 3, 2010)

Pingu said:


> nope, sorry. my careometer seems to be malfunctioning
> 
> eta
> 
> ...



Yes.

Liverpool has such a _wonderful_ sense of community.


----------



## Rosco (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> did i say something wrong?.....or irrelevant lol?





No but your awful spelling and the fact that you've got less than 2000 posts means people around here will not acknowledge you, and if on the rare occasion they do it will be to question your mental ability in an extremely patronising way.

Good luck!


----------



## killer b (Mar 3, 2010)

Rosco said:


> No but your awful spelling and the fact that you've got less than 2000 posts means people around here will not acknowledge you, and if on the rare occasion they do it will be to question your mental ability in an extremely patronising way.
> 
> Good luck!



You can fuck off too.


----------



## fogbat (Mar 3, 2010)

Rosco said:


> No but your awful spelling and the fact that you've got less than 2000 posts means people around here will not acknowledge you, and if on the rare occasion they do it will be to question your mental ability in an extremely patronising way.
> 
> Good luck!



DF was acknowledged.

And, given their post, was given the acknowledgement they deserved.


----------



## pgb (Mar 3, 2010)

There was a twenty something woman reviewing the Papers on Sky News this morning who appeared to be angry that the pair of them hadn't been executed as ten year olds - *not* something to watch to set yourself up for a happy and non-misanthropic day to come.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> You may or may not be night.  There are many hundreds of thousands, even millions, in the UK who would dispute that.  In fact, that view is probably in the minority.


Such a short post, yet so full of speculation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

AverageJoe said:


> Just been watching on the news, and under the terms of his release there were a whole bunch of conditions that he could not ever do, otherwise he would be bought back and put inside.
> 
> These include things like
> 
> ...



Nah, those conditions were *additional to* the conditions of his licence, and while the media (so far) are speculating that he must have breached one of his additional conditions, he could just as well have breached a licence condition.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...with appalling violent neglectful families...it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Baby P would have ended up like Thompson & Venables.



Indeed. It it a fine line between tragic victim and 'evil' child a lot of the time I suspect


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

Azrael said:


> There used to be a middle-ground between 10-14, but Labour abolished it.


_Doli incapax_


----------



## likesfish (Mar 3, 2010)

theres loads of people on the net who think neckshooting 10 year olds is the way to go not in a minority unforuntatly  
 parents of the kid Jamie bulger fair enough complete strangers thinking lynching would somehow be justice


----------



## mrs quoad (Mar 3, 2010)

Azrael said:


> So now, it's "commit murder aged nine and 11 months, no responsibility" and "commit murder aged 10 and one month, show trial and life license, sonny".


Erm, just to clarify, that's no _criminal_ responsibility. 

A child younger than 10yrs old could still receive one hell of a lot of long-term intervention, and - potentially - be kept in a very secure environment, off the back of something they'd done. I believe they could also be very firmly engaged with a youth offending team, in such a situation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

ymu said:


> Do you have a link for this, because it seems very unlikely.
> 
> Unpaid parking tickets are a civil offence, no? CRB is a _criminal _record check. If they did count, surely there'd be very few teachers still allowed to teach?



Has to be a criminal offence, but it can be something as wafer-thin as Mrs Magpie's pint of milk or breach of the peace.


----------



## FoxyRed (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...with appalling violent neglectful families...it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Baby P would have ended up like Thompson & Venables.



Thats a very good point you made....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> i dont think they ever should have been released, kids or not.


Why not?


> There is a fine line between sanity and insanity.


Do you have anything original to say, or are you just going to post clichés?


> Both should still b locked up in an mentl health institution and the workers there are equipped enough to work with them.


They weren't locked up in a "mental health institution" in the first place, they were detained in a secure unit.


> A complete fucking disgrace imo.


What, your opinions? I agree. They're so fucking ill-informed you should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## soam (Mar 3, 2010)

N_igma said:


> Apparentally one of them lived in the village beside mine.  I mean, who the fuck makes this shit up!



dunno-but the guy who was talking about the stabbing is a prison officer- this was a couple of weeks ago,


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 3, 2010)

Will this mean people will stop sending me invites to get him off face book now? 

good


----------



## pogofish (Mar 3, 2010)

ymu said:


> And how do you know this? And if you do genuinely know this, are you not breaking confidentiality by revealing it?



One was housed just down the road from Mrs Fish's old address in her hometown, which was probably chosen for very specific reasons but to say what would clearly identify it.  I could go into some detail about the extensive accomodation modifications and supervision arrangements for the guy.  The police there took him very seriously.  And she knows his new name.  

For confidentially, I don't know - As well as the more general issue of English authorities dumping serious offenders in Scotland, with next to no information provided to their new hosts or the local police (discussed here before), there was an issue over confidentiality not applying here as many of the arrangements were not ratified by the Scottish courts.

Which was what let the cat out of the bag for the other, when a Scottish newspaper decided to test the waters and name his last but one location, whilst hinting strongly at his current nearby location.  Another Urbanite could say a lot more about that.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Such a short post, yet so full of speculation.



but true (even shorter)


----------



## Dan U (Mar 3, 2010)

i just read the daily mail comments

apparently they should have been killed when they were 10.


----------



## Bajie (Mar 3, 2010)

I was just reading on a different website about their backgrounds, both their parents where immense fuck ups. And from such fucked up families come fucked up people, though the those two where the extreme.

Not sure what can be done about that except statutory contraception... which is wrong on so many levels but also makes sense on some levels... in the case of those two's parents at least.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 3, 2010)

Bajie said:


> Not sure what can be done about that except statutory contraception... which is wrong on so many levels but also makes sense on some levels... in the case of those two's parents at least.



whoah there!


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2010)

Look, we just can't have crimes of this type happening every 10 years or so. Drastic action is needed, surely you can see that?!!11!


----------



## dylans (Mar 3, 2010)

To the hang em and flog  em brigade. A couple of things

Whatever terrible thing was done, they are first and foremost human beings

Second they were children when this was done. Kids. 

Third. If we want to live in a civilised society we need (WE NEED) a system of justice that attempts rehabilitation. That invests in the idea that terrible acts can be turned around. And lives changed. 

I think any act by a ten year can be turned around. Any act and no act committed by a ten year old can be beyond redemption


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 3, 2010)

Tied-in advertising fail on that Times article - 









I felt bad, then I lol'd


----------



## AverageJoe (Mar 3, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah, those conditions were *additional to* the conditions of his licence, and while the media (so far) are speculating that he must have breached one of his additional conditions, he could just as well have breached a licence condition.



Thats what I meant 

When I said 'one of these' I was including the additional conditions as well as the original conditions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> but true (even shorter)



How do you know it's true? It's your *opinion*, unsubstantiated by anything except your self-belief and self-righteousness.


----------



## zenie (Mar 3, 2010)

So still no details on what he actually did then?


----------



## longdog (Mar 3, 2010)

The Octagon said:


> Tied-in advertising fail on that Times article -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's better than my Hull Daily Mail one with the story about obesity in Hull topped with a banner advert for a free bag of chips for every reader


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 3, 2010)

longdog said:


> That's better than my Hull Daily Mail one with the story about obesity in Hull topped with a banner advert for a free bag of chips for every reader



you should see this  one

http://ithinkihavethatmanga.com/forum/images/upload/Shippy.advertfail.jpg


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> How do you know it's true? It's your *opinion*, unsubstantiated by anything except your self-belief and self-righteousness.



yes, my opinion.  But i'm pretty ertain less than 0.01% in the UK gives a hoot about these 2 boys.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> yes, my opinion.  But i'm pretty ertain less than 0.01% in the UK gives a hoot about these 2 boys.



They are actually 28 year old men now.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 3, 2010)

It must be a little weird not being able to go to your home town, which can only be a half memory for Venables now anyway.

I'm no psychologist but I'm sure I'd feel the need to 'connect' in some way with my childhood and maybe with everything that happened - might it not be part of dealing with it?

Anyway, I don't know why he's banged up again I was just musing on one of the conditions of his release.


----------



## dylans (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> yes, my opinion.  But i'm pretty ertain less than 0.01% in the UK gives a hoot about these 2 boys.



You are joking. Have you seen todays papers? This country is fucking obsessed by them


----------



## zenie (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> yes, my opinion. But i'm pretty ertain less than 0.01% in the UK gives a hoot about these 2 boys.


 
Don't talk such utter horse shite. You speak for no-one but yourself, and can't be certain of anything like what you're claiming.


----------



## tombowler (Mar 3, 2010)

They were really badly messed up kids. As posted here their family life was problematic and messed up families make messed up kids. 

I really do hope they got the care and support they so needed, but having worked with a child that got moved to a secure unit and being allowed to see what the reports said, I have to say it's very hard if not impossible to get a good therapeutic secure unit. 

Social services failed these two when they were little boys and this failing put them where they were, if instead they had died due to neglect or worse they would have been talked about the same as all the other kids who the system fails and they die BUT as these two went to the other extreme they are branded evil buy those who should know better.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 3, 2010)

dylans said:


> You are joking. Have you seen todays papers? This country is fucking obsessed by them



Obsession with, and caring about their welfare, are two different things. If the public had had a vote at the time they would have been put down like a pair of unwanted puppies.


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> Obsession with, and caring about their welfare, are two different things. If the public had had a vote at the time they would have been put down like a pair of unwanted puppies.


Like Baby P and Victoria Climbie, you mean?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2010)

I don't fucking care and I don't know anyone else IRL who does either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> yes, my opinion.  But i'm pretty ertain less than 0.01% in the UK gives a hoot about these 2 boys.



So, you're certain about something you can't possibly know?
Interesting how you're projecting your opinion as a widely-held belief. I suspect it makes you feel better about holding it, convincing yourself that "less than 0.01% in the UK give a hoot...".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

zenie said:


> Don't talk such utter horse shite. You speak for no-one but yourself, and can't be certain of anything like what you're claiming.



Oh, he can be "certain". People who're convinced that their own opinion is the "right" one often are.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 3, 2010)

What did gunneradt mean by 'give a hoot' anyway? 

What was he implying? That anyone not Mailisihly bellowing that they should have been flogged then hanged at 10 'cares more about the rights of the criminals than those of the victims'??


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Mar 3, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> What did gunneradt mean by 'give a hoot' anyway?
> 
> What was he implying? That anyone not Mailisihly bellowing that they should have been flogged then hanged at 10 'cares more about the rights of the criminals than those of the victims'??


  Or never been released from prison.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh, he can be "certain". People who're convinced that their own opinion is the "right" one often are.



go on then the pair of you

start an online petition saying we really care about these lost souls and see how many signatures you get


----------



## zenie (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> go on then the pair of you
> 
> start an online petition saying we really care about these lost souls and see how many signatures you get


 
Stop talking shit.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

zenie said:


> Stop talking shit.



Well I'll stick with the vast majority - not the hopeless urban minority


----------



## zenie (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Well I'll stick with the vast majority - not the hopeless urban minority


 
Thought you wanted us to do the petition cos you didn't have a clue on numbers, make your mind up.


----------



## Gingerman (Mar 3, 2010)

Worst thing about this is the 'I told you so' brigade will be out in force today


----------



## dylans (Mar 3, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> Obsession with, and caring about their welfare, are two different things. If the public had had a vote at the time they would have been put down like a pair of unwanted puppies.



Oh I agree. Hate is the word that I had in mind. Care has nothing to do with it. I find the whole "lock em up and throw away the key" thing terribly depressing and  sadly predictable. I will never forget the news footage of people attacking the police van when they were first taken to court as kids. Fucking disgusting

I think it would have been better if the news about the reincarceration hadn't been made public at all. This has just created a storm of speculation and space for the "hang em" maggots to crawl out of the woodwork again. 

They were ten year old kids who fucked up really badly. Give them a break and let them start again.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

zenie said:


> Thought you wanted us to do the petition cos you didn't have a clue on numbers, make your mind up.



nothing to do with numbers

tell you what - why dont you start 2 - both at each end of the scale and see which gets the most signatures


----------



## stupid dogbot (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Well I'll stick with the vast majority - not the hopeless urban minority



And we'll stick with the knowledge that you're a smug twat.


----------



## zenie (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> nothing to do with numbers
> 
> tell you what - why dont you start 2 - both at each end of the scale and see which gets the most signatures


 
Or, you could just stop making dumb claims you can't substantiate like 0.01%. 

Use your brain yeh?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> go on then the pair of you
> 
> start an online petition saying we really care about these lost souls and see how many signatures you get



Love to hate, bottom of the rung, lowest common denominator, white van man drivel.

You wank over The Sun, yes?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Love to hate, bottom of the rung, lowest common denominator, white van man drivel.
> 
> You wank over The Sun, yes?



what a moron

not love to hate - just standing up for right and wrong = not defending scum like some on here


----------



## dylans (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> yes, my opinion.  But i'm pretty ertain less than 0.01% in the UK gives a hoot about these 2 boys.



What saddens me about wankers like you is the fake sentimentality. You didn't know Jamie Bulger. He is a stranger to you as he is to me. Everyone is saddened by that tragedy but people like you are not content to be sad.  No,  they have to wear it on their chests like a badge of honour. Look, look everyone. Look how much I hate these beasts. Look at how loudly I scream for blood. Look at how I vent my hate. 

It's the same with the baby Peter case. I bet you danced with joy when his killer got splashed with boiling water recently didn't you? I bet you told everyone you could how happy you were. You have to vent your hate.

This crime was a tragedy for 3 kids not one. Your cries of hate are fake.


----------



## zenie (Mar 3, 2010)

10 year old mentally ill children are scum are they?  

Strange world some people live in.


----------



## dylans (Mar 3, 2010)

You know, sometimes I fucking love this site.

 Really, I love the fact that the posters on here, by and large, have a decency and compassion that is sadly missing in other places. I love the fact that vile wankers like gunneradt  get told to fuck off


----------



## stupid dogbot (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> what a moron



Yep, that's how you're coming across.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> nothing to do with numbers
> 
> tell you what - why dont you start 2 - both at each end of the scale and see which gets the most signatures



Something being the right thing to do is based on it's popularity then?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> what a moron



Bring out the big guns, eh? 

Moron, ouch


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Mar 3, 2010)

zenie said:


> 10 year old mentally ill children are scum are they?
> 
> Strange world some people live in.


  were they mentally ill?  

eta:  you mean mentally tortured (upbringing)?


----------



## Jonti (Mar 3, 2010)

Do you think they were in good mental health?


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Mar 3, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Do you think they were in good mental health?


  were they classed as mentally ill?  (the judge's comments, they were considered "...mentally normall")


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

dylans said:


> What saddens me about wankers like you is the fake sentimentality. You didn't know Jamie Bulger. He is a stranger to you as he is to me. Everyone is saddened by that tragedy but people like you are not content to be sad.  No,  they have to wear it on their chests like a badge of honour. Look, look everyone. Look how much I hate these beasts. Look at how loudly I scream for blood. Look at how I vent my hate.
> 
> It's the same with the baby Peter case. I bet you danced with joy when his killer got splashed with boiling water recently didn't you? I bet you told everyone you could how happy you were. You have to vent your hate.
> 
> This crime was a tragedy for 3 kids not one. Your cries of hate are fake.



They're not fake at all.  My son was almost exactly the same as Jamie Bulger at the time.

I don't care for people who do this sort of thing at all - no matter how old they are.

Why do you think there are so many facebook, articles and other groups echoing this sentiment?  And I've yet to see one facebook group defending them.  Of course, someone on here could start one but I suspect it would be deleted.


----------



## dylans (Mar 3, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Do you think they were in good mental health?



It kind of doesn't matter. They were kids who crossed a line. But they were kids. They had to be given a second chance.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Mar 3, 2010)

dylans said:


> They had to be given a second chance.


   iirc, not even the victims mother disagrees with you.   She, and I suspect like many others, have/had difficulty with the length of the sentencing.


----------



## dylans (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> They're not fake at all.  *My son was almost exactly the same as Jamie Bulger at the time.*
> 
> I don't care for people who do this sort of thing at all - no matter how old they are.
> 
> Why do you think there are so many facebook, articles and other groups echoing this sentiment?  And I've yet to see one facebook group defending them.  Of course, someone on here could start one but I suspect it would be deleted.



So fucking what? My son was 2 years old when his mother was murdered. I bet you have never tasted real hate. The hate that comes from losing someone to crime.  I have and I tell you now. It is nothing like the macho screams for blood on sentimental facebook groups. Nothing at all. 

I despise you and your ugly mentality of revenge and spite. It does nothing for the memory of Jamie Bulger and it does nothing to help society come to terms with what happened.

You are totally, totally fake


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Why do you think there are so many facebook, articles and other groups echoing this sentiment?



Because dumb fuckers like to play the big I am regarding dealing with complex social issues to show off to their friends.

And they probably haven't thought it through. Their relationship with the story is through black and white sensationalism. And they beat their fucking chests about it to let the world know how deeply clueless they fucking are. 

How should I know the answer? You obviously draw your opinions from populist lowest common denominator flights of fancy. Have you ever considered actually *thinking* about an issue instead of spitting bile at it and stay comfortably within the majority view? How will you ever grow when your position is already mapped out for you by the Friday Night Kebab and Spew Brigade?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Why do you think there are so many facebook, articles and other groups echoing this sentiment?  And I've yet to see one facebook group defending them.  Of course, someone on here could start one but I suspect it would be deleted.



Therer's facebook groups defending domestic violence, demanding the removal from public of children with downs syndrome and not one opposing the latter site, does that make it ok? 

Now, who is defending what they did? Show me where anyone has done anything close, take your time now won't you.


----------



## zenie (Mar 3, 2010)

DarthSydodyas said:


> were they mentally ill?
> 
> eta: you mean mentally tortured (upbringing)?


 
No, and yes to the first question, which sort of solved the 2nd 

Jonti put it better than me. Would 10 year olds who weren't fucked in the head (by their parents, by the system) carry out this kind of abuse, and the answer's no I think.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Because dumb fuckers like to play the big I am regarding dealing with complex social issues to show off to their friends.
> 
> And they probably haven't thought it through. Their relationship with the story is through black and white sensationalism. And they beat their fucking chests about it to let the world know how deeply clueless they fucking are.
> 
> How should I know the answer? You obviously draw your opinions from populist lowest common denominator flights of fancy. Have you ever considered actually *thinking* about an issue instead of spitting bile at it and stay comfortably within the majority view? How will you ever grow when your position is already mapped out for you by the Friday Night Kebab and Spew Brigade?



Oh the old 'the kids never stood a chance' sterotype.  You know what? I'm glad that the majority view is the way it is with certain groups.  Putting normal human beings at risk for the sake of rehabilitating those who can't decipher right and wrong shouldn't be tolerated.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Mar 3, 2010)

zenie said:


> Jonti put it better than me. Would 10 year olds who weren't fucked in the head (by their parents, by the system) carry out this kind of abuse, and the answer's no I think.


  agreed


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Oh the old 'the kids never stood a chance' sterotype.  You know what? I'm glad that the majority view is the way it is with certain groups.  Putting normal human beings at risk for the sake of rehabilitating those who can't decipher right and wrong shouldn't be tolerated.



They are normal human beings. You put yourself into an extremely unstable environment involving abuse and see how you start behaving.

You're either a troll or seriously clueless.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Therer's facebook groups defending domestic violence, demanding the removal from public of children with downs syndrome and not one opposing the latter site, does that make it ok?
> 
> Now, who is defending what they did? Show me where anyone has done anything close, take your time now won't you.



Any chance you'll answer the questions here gunner or are you just gonna play the big man on the internet?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> They are normal human beings. You put yourself into an extremely unstable environment involving abuse and see how you start behaving.
> 
> You're either a troll or seriously clueless.



So you think it's worth endangering other human beings for the sake of attempting to rehabilitate these 2?  I don't know what the re-offence has been.  What if it's something quite serious.  Will that have been worth it?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Any chance you'll answer the questions here gunner or are you just gonna play the big man on the internet?



I am not playing anything other than devil's advocate - which I can.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I am not playing anything other than devil's advocate - which I can.



Does that mean you can't answer relatively simple questions then? It seems so up to now.....


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> So you think it's worth endangering other human beings for the sake of attempting to rehabilitate these 2?  I don't know what the re-offence has been.  What if it's something quite serious.  Will that have been worth it?



No, you don't know.

And attempting to rehabilitate them is about the only choice anyone can make whilst still laying a claim to civilization, regardless of whatever alternatives you rabidly declare support for. The question, especially if it was something serious, would be why rehabilitation and support weren't more active in supporting and monitoring him.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> So you think it's worth endangering other human beings for the sake of attempting to rehabilitate these 2?  I don't know what the re-offence has been.  What if it's something quite serious.  Will that have been worth it?


  we dont know.  its all speculation at the moment.   no one is going to release them unless they were happy they posed no danger to society.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

DarthSydodyas said:


> we dont know.  its all speculation at the moment.   no one is going to release them unless they were happy they posed no danger to society.



Is that so?

I suspect that if the re-offence had been minor the authorities may have been more willing to release that information.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> So you think it's worth endangering other human beings for the sake of attempting to rehabilitate these 2?  I don't know what the re-offence has been.  What if it's something quite serious.  Will that have been worth it?



What about people who get killed in car accidents? Should whoever crashed into them get locked away and the key thrown away too?

What about the armed forces? Plenty of killing going on in Iraq at the moment. Is it OK to kill people if the government says so thus sending out the message to young messed up kids that that's how we deal with problems in the big boy's world? or should we lock squaddies up and throw away the key also?

What type of killing is ok, gunner? We need distinctions. Because there's a fucking lot of it happening the world over and if the Bulger killers end up living a peaceful life due to rehabilitation then there's a lot  less blood on their hands than many a man who you doubtlessly hold up as role models and heroes.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Is that so?
> 
> I suspect that if the re-offence had been minor the authorities may have been more willing to release that information.



Suspicion and knowledge ain't the same thing, pal. As you seem to have a hard time recognising that, in your haste to point out that you know best.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Is that so?
> 
> I suspect that if the re-offence had been minor the authorities may have been more willing to release that information.


  Moot.   Until we hear more from them (if they indeed to want to release anything), its speculation.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> What about people who get killed in car accidents? Should whoever crashed into them get locked away and the key thrown away too?
> 
> What about the armed forces? Plenty of killing going on in Iraq at the moment. Is it OK to kill people if the government says so thus sending out the message to young messed up kids that that's how we deal with problems in the big boy's world? or should we lock squaddies up and throw away the key also?
> 
> What type of killing is ok, gunner? We need distinctions. Because there's a fucking lot of it happening the world over and if the Bulger killers end up living a peaceful life due to rehabilitation then there's a lot  less blood on their hands than many a man who you doubtlessly hold up as role models and heroes.



Don't be ridiculous - you cannot compare killing people in war.

What I said was how much risk should the general public be put at to rehabilitate certain individuals?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Don't be ridiculous - you cannot compare killing people in war.
> 
> What I said was how much risk should the general public be put at to rehabilitate certain individuals?



So killing in war = ok.
Two messed up young kids brought up on violence who end up killing = scum?

Do you think the advocacy and celebration of warfare sends out signals to the young or do you think the two exist in isolation, out of interest?


----------



## stupid dogbot (Mar 3, 2010)

War doesn't affect violence elsewhere in society.

Only hip hop and computer games do that...


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Don't be ridiculous - you cannot compare killing people in war.



Why not? Or do you assume that war is a gentlemanly persuit where all the killing is reasonable and just according to some abstract notion of justice known only to the military hierarchy? There're plenty of wholly unnecessary and abhorrent acts commited in a war, although presumably they don't count to you.


----------



## Pingu (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So killing in war = ok.
> Two messed up young kids brought up on violence who end up killing = scum?
> 
> Do you think the advocacy and celebration of warfare sends out signals to the young or do you think the two exist in isolation, out of interest?


 

tbh there is a  huge difference between shooting someone in a battle situation and enticing a 2 year old kid, toturing him, killing him and then dumping the body on railway lines.

just a smidgeon


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So killing in war = ok.
> Two messed up young kids brought up on violence who end up killing = scum?
> 
> Do you think the advocacy and celebration of warfare sends out signals to the young or do you think the two exist in isolation, out of interest?



Two kids who, presumably, would have been fine and respectable had they funnelled their issues into a military career, where acts of violence aren't to be questioned.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So killing in war = ok.
> Two messed up young kids brought up on violence who end up killing = scum?
> 
> Do you think the advocacy and celebration of warfare sends out signals to the young or do you think the two exist in isolation, out of interest?



Do I think 2 10 year olds who do something like that are affected by foreign policy?  No I don't think so, do you?

You can redefine it anyway you like but the vast majority of people in the UK will not spare any sympathy for these 2 or their rehabilitation.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Therer's facebook groups defending domestic violence, demanding the removal from public of children with downs syndrome and not one opposing the latter site, does that make it ok?
> 
> Now, who is defending what they did? Show me where anyone has done anything close, take your time now won't you.



Hmmmmm..... Any chance I might get an reply to this rather easy question?


----------



## Pingu (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Is that so?
> 
> I suspect that if the re-offence had been minor the authorities may have been more willing to release that information.


 

assuming its not subject to sub judice as metioned by DB earlier on in the thread.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

Pingu said:


> tbh there is a  huge difference between shooting someone in a battle situation and enticing a 2 year old kid, toturing him, killing him and then dumping the body on railway lines.
> 
> just a smidgeon



Plenty of killing in war doesn't fit that mould though, as civilian casualties will attest.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Do I think 2 10 year olds who do something like that are affected by foreign policy?  No I don't think so, do you?
> 
> You can redefine it anyway you like but the vast majority of people in the UK will not spare any sympathy for these 2 or their rehabilitation.



The glorification and fetishisation of violence, which serves the military structure better than most, is a factor throughout our society.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

Pingu said:


> tbh there is a  huge difference between shooting someone in a battle situation and enticing a 2 year old kid, toturing him, killing him and then dumping the body on railway lines.
> 
> just a smidgeon



Yeah and that obviously never crossed my mind, like.. 

You're missing what I'm getting at by a country mile. Killing someone is the same act (they're alive one minute, the next they're not) no matter what the circumstances. I'm questioning why he deems the Bulger killers as 'not human' and 'scum' when clearly people who do the very same act and are paid for it occupy a different zone in people's mentality regarding killing.

Like one is the lowest of the low while the other is held in high esteem.

I find it a bit odd. Perhaps it's just me, eh?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

YouSir said:


> The glorification and fetishisation of violence, which serves the military structure better than most, is a factor throughout our society.



This. ^^

And with a name like 'gunner' ...


----------



## bigbry (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...with appalling violent neglectful families...it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Baby P would have ended up like Thompson & Venables.



At least someone on here is aware how much the upbringing affects children's behaviour/development.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

bigbry said:


> At least someone on here is aware how much the upbringing affects children's behaviour/development.



I'd say that most of the people on this thread are aware of it, the notable exception(s) are just the focus of attention. Shows Urban's best side really.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Do I think 2 10 year olds who do something like that are affected by foreign policy?  No I don't think so, do you?
> 
> You can redefine it anyway you like but the vast majority of people in the UK will not spare any sympathy for these 2 or their rehabilitation.



We're a country that identifies itself with violence. 

Tell me, why are the kids the devil incarnate? Every fucker is at it.

Join the fucking dots.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Hmmmmm..... Any chance I might get an reply to this rather easy question?



well lets say there is an affinity with their plight - of which I share very little.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> We're a country that identifies itself with violence.
> 
> Tell me, why are the kids the devil incarnate? Every fucker is at it.
> 
> Join the fucking dots.



Well if you think what they did is similar to what many others have done, then fine.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> well lets say there is an affinity with their plight - of which I share very little.



Right, so contrary to what you stupidly and without a shred of evidence claimed, no-one is defending them?!


----------



## Pingu (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah and that obviously never crossed my mind, like..
> 
> You're missing what I'm getting at by a country mile. Killing someone is the same act (they're alive one minute, the next they're not) no matter what the circumstances. I'm questioning why he deems the Bulger killers as 'not human' and 'scum' when clearly people who do the very same act and are paid for it occupy a different zone in people's mentality regarding killing.
> 
> ...


 
intent and motivation would be two big factors for me.

the bulger thing has no impact on my life at all btw and I am indifferent as to if they are allowed to lead a full and happy life or if tehy are thrown to the indignant mob crying for their blood - makes no difference to me. but i can see there is a gulf of difference between killing people in the various ways that they have been killed over the millenia mankind has been doing its best to wipe other bits of mankind out.

e.g. shooting someone who is about to shoot you is most definately not the same as what those two did to the bulger kid. yes outcome was the same but the intent and motivation to perform the act are very very different.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Right, so contrary to what you stupidly and without a shred of evidence claimed, no-one is defending them?!



Their upbringing has been singled out as a reason/defence for what they did.  It depends how you view that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Well if you think what they did is similar to what many others have done, then fine.



I'm saying that they are a product of our society. Our society has been at war for the last however long. Our society thinks violence is ok. A great many kids think violence is ok.

Join the fucking dots man. All it takes is a shitty home life with beatings involved and that's your recipe. 

Not "scum". 

And if we're going to have someone play devil's advocate can we at least have one who can form an argument beyond echoing perceived public sentiment as delivered by fucking facebook?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Their upbringing has been singled out as a reason/defence for what they did.  It depends how you view that.



No, it isn't how YOU view that. It's how it affected THEM.

That's the difference.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

Pingu said:


> intent and motivation would be two big factors for me.



I'm guessing that within the military there's a vast range of motivations and intents depending on the individual involved, not that I really agree with any motivation when it comes to killing but I can at least reasonably disagree with certain beliefs as opposed to finding them abhorrent. The mass fetishisation of the military is a very dodgy thing, it takes the intent and motivations of everyone involved and makes them into something unquestionably admirable which in turn creates a very dodgy society.

Of course that's very little to do with anything, so I'll stop typing now.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm saying that they are a product of our society. Our society has been at war for the last however long. Our society thinks violence is ok. A great many kids think violence is ok.
> 
> Join the fucking dots man. All it takes is a shitty home life with beatings involved and that's your recipe.
> 
> ...



I didn't bring up facebook, someone else did.  

You're first statement is ridiculous.  Every human being raised in this country is a product of our society.

Also, likening war to murdering a 2 year old, at whatever age - I just can't see the connection..

Public sentiment, at the end of the day, is normally how the majority of people think - that's why it's called public sentiment.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Their upbringing has been singled out as a reason/defence for what they did.  It depends how you view that.



No, you're not getting away with this shite. A reason why does not = evading responsibility. No-one dfended what they did as well you know. Now, as I asked, where has ANYONE on here defended what they did, no more wriggling.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Their upbringing has been singled out as a reason/defence for what they did.  It depends how you view that.



Why/how would people 'defend' their actions? No one has denied their guilt, no one has suggested that they're charming young men deep down, no one wants to befriend them. But understanding the reasons and finding a way to move our society beyond them is an entirely different thing, a very worthwhile one I'd say.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

Pingu said:


> intent and motivation would be two big factors for me.
> 
> the bulger thing has no impact on my life at all. but i can see there is a gulf of difference between killing people in the various ways that they have been killed over the millenia mankind has been doing its best to wipe other bits of mankind out.
> 
> e.g. shooting someone who is about to shoot you is most definately not the same as what those two did to the bulger kid. yes outcome was the same but the intent and motivation to perform the act are very very different.



Because two messed up ten year old kids should know better than grown men? 

And don't pretend it's all hunky dory by the rule book yeah chaps? in a war ffs


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> No, it isn't how YOU view that. It's how it affected THEM.
> 
> That's the difference.



Any upbringing can affect anyone in any way.  It does not teach you to kill.  

Being violent and torturing someone are completely different.  What the kids did involved thought - I very much doubt they were taught that at home regardless of how poor their upbringing was.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Any upbringing can affect anyone in any way.  It does not teach you to kill.
> 
> Being violent and torturing someone are completely different.  What the kids did involved thought - I very much doubt they were taught that at home regardless of how poor their upbringing was.



If you're raised in an abusive, aggressive, violent atmosphere do you not think that it might normalise such behaviour?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> No, you're not getting away with this shite. A reason why does not = evading responsibility. No-one dfended what they did as well you know. Now, as I asked, where has ANYONE on here defended what they did, no more wriggling.



Well Im equating an understanding of their upbringing as a defence for what they did in some way.

I also think most children know the difference between right and wrong when it comes to this kind of extreme.  Even a 3 year old would know they shouldn't hurt another person in that way.


----------



## Pingu (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Because two messed up ten year old kids should know better than grown men?


 

had they accidentally killed him then maybe i would be with you on this but they deliberately took him - even a 10 yr old knows that takng a 2 yr old in that way is wrong (the degree of wrong i will grant you can be debated but its still wrong). they then, over a period of time kicked, punched and tortured him before finalyy killing him and then dumping his body on a railway line

so yeah i reckon your average 10 yr old will know thats a wrong thing to do.

if they were THAT messed up then they should have been put into psych care - not that that would have rehabilitated them but if they really were that fucked up...


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

YouSir said:


> If you're raised in an abusive, aggressive, violent atmosphere do you not think that it might normalise such behaviour?



Normalise? No.

Be more likely to be violent, yes.

However, being violent and torturing aomeone are completely different.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Well Im equating an understanding of their upbringing as a defence for what they did in some way.
> 
> I also think most children know the difference between right and wrong when it comes to this kind of extreme.  Even a 3 year old would know they shouldn't hurt another person in that way.



Before you say any more please read this
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/focus/earlybrain/index.cfm


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Pingu said:


> had they accidentally killed him then maybe i would be with you on this but they deliberately took him - even a 10 yr old knows that takng a 2 yr old in that way is wrong (the degree of wrong i will grant you can be debated but its still wrong). they then, over a period of time kicked, punched and tortured him before finalyy killing him and then dumping his body on a railway line
> 
> so yeah i reckon your average 10 yr old will know thats a wrong thing to do.
> 
> if they were THAT messed up then they should have been put into psych care - not that that would have rehabilitated them but if they really were that fucked up...



I think a 3 year old would


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Any upbringing can affect anyone in any way.  It does not teach you to kill.
> 
> Being violent and torturing someone are completely different.  What the kids did involved thought - I very much doubt they were taught that at home regardless of how poor their upbringing was.


Wut?


----------



## Pingu (Mar 3, 2010)

YouSir said:


> If you're raised in an abusive, aggressive, violent atmosphere do you not think that it might normalise such behaviour?


 

not to that extent no. yeah i will grant you that it may make casual violence less "wrong" in their eyes but what they did required thought and then to put those thoughts into action.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Also, likening war to murdering a 2 year old, at whatever age - I just can't see the connection..



If we resolve our disputes by warfare then it sends out the signal to the wider community and impressionable kids that resolving disputes through violence is ok. If they grew up in households where violence is commonplace it will normalise it to them.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Before you say any more please read this
> http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/focus/earlybrain/index.cfm



Like they've found similar or a 'like' brain pattern in other murderers that have not been the form of abuse in early years


----------



## Pingu (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Because two messed up ten year old kids should know better than grown men?
> 
> And don't pretend it's all hunky dory by the rule book yeah chaps? in a war ffs


 

can you conceed that "normal" war fighting* and what they did to the buldger kid are very different things? not the outcome but the motivation and intent

* i.e not some fucked up shit like what ze germans did during ww2


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> However, being violent and torturing aomeone are completely different.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> If we resolve our disputes by warfare then it sends out the signal to the wider community and impressionable kids that resolving disputes through violence is ok. If they grew up in households where violence is commonplace it will normalise it to them.



Can't see the connection between warfare and domestic violence


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Well Im equating an understanding of their upbringing as a defence for what they did in some way.



Jesus i'm amazed you manage to get out of the house in the morning. Understanding why something happens doesn't mean it's ok for it to happen. Clearly that simple logic is beyond you.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Like they've found similar or a 'like' brain pattern in other murderers that have not been the form of abuse in early years


You read all that in 2 minutes? Wow!


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

Pingu said:


> not to that extent no. yeah i will grant you that it may make casual violence less "wrong" in their eyes but what they did required thought and then to put those thoughts into action.



Something which I'd put beyond the capacities of everyone I know, so these kids were 'different' from what I'd consider normal, the question is whether you put that down to tangible, recognisable experiences and imposed mentalities or some abstract notion of evil is up to you. Obviously I lean towards the former.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You read all that in 2 minutes? Wow!



Not the whole lot but the first paragraph pretty much summed it up.


----------



## Pingu (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You read all that in 2 minutes? Wow!


 

hes clearly "gifted"


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Jesus i'm amazed you manage to get out of the house in the morning. Understanding why something happens doesn't mean it's ok for it to happen. Clearly that simple logic is beyond you.



Ok then well carry on 'understanding' why they did what they did.

I, for one, am glad the little sod is back behind bars.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

Pingu said:


> can you conceed that "normal" war fighting* and what they did to the buldger kid are very different things? not the outcome but the motivation and intent
> 
> * i.e not some fucked up shit like what ze germans did during ww2



Idealised 'war fighting' is different, the realities less so. Soldiers don't just kill soldiers and there's no defined, civilized field of battle to point to. Most people who die in modern wars are civilians and whether they were the target or not the act of killing them is the same. Collatoral damage is the most bullshit notion ever created.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

Pingu said:


> can you conceed that "normal" war fighting and what they did to the buldger kid are very different things? not the outcome but the motivation and intent



Erm, they tortured and killed him to draw some kind of sadistic satisfaction from it. The wars are about human greed. I think the war is probably the worse out of the two as the authors of it had privileged upbringings where as the kids are just kids and clearly messed up.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Not the whole lot but the first paragraph pretty much summed it up.


You didn't even read the first paragraph.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Ok then well carry on 'understanding' why they did what they did.
> 
> I, for one, am glad the little sod is back behind bars.



Great. You can fuck off now if you want.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Great. You can fuck off now if you want.



And so can you, if you like.

Lets hope he's not out any time soon.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Jesus i'm amazed you manage to get out of the house in the morning. Understanding why something happens doesn't mean it's ok for it to happen. Clearly that simple logic is beyond you.



Quite. Understanding why something happens is in order to prevent it in the future.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> And so can you, if you like.



After you. 

Go on, off you fuck.


----------



## Dancin_Fairy (Mar 3, 2010)

Everyone is here because they like to express their opinoins. It doesnt matter if they disagree with you, there is no reason to be insulting to some one you do not know.
I said what i did because i think anyone who kills a human being should be killed them selves, but obviously not in this country anymore. so the next best thing is to keep them in a secure unit.

Tell me of a ten year old who doesnt know that killing a 2 year old is bad.

Obviously you think forgiveness is the way forward, but some things are just unforgivable.

So me spelling Dancin_Fairy decides my intelligence? my god get a grip.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

It's not the name, it was the post


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> Everyone is here because they like to express their opinoins. It doesnt matter if they disagree with you, there is no reason to be insulting to some one you do not know.



Oh do fuck off.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> Everyone is here because they like to express their opinoins. It doesnt matter if they disagree with you, there is no reason to be insulting to some one you do not know.
> I said what i did because i think anyone who kills a human being should be killed them selves, but obviously not in this country anymore. so the next best thing is to keep them in a secure unit.
> 
> Tell me of a ten year old who doesnt know that killing a 2 year old is bad.
> ...



Forgiveness has nothing to do with it, nor should it, who would we be to forgive their actions anyway? We've no direct involvement with what happened. Understanding why it happened though, making sure it doesn't happen again is the real point for discussion. And I disagree and fail to understand the reasoning of people who think that killing them, or locking them up and throwing away the key, is somehow going to prevent anything similar in the future.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Ok then well carry on 'understanding' why they did what they did.
> 
> I, for one, am glad the little sod is back behind bars.



What part of understanding is defending what they did? Take your time because you clearly haven't shown anywhere that it does, which frankly is no surprise. 

As for him being back in jail, if he's broken his release terms then he can have no complaints.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 3, 2010)

Thing is gunneradt, our greatest protection is our understanding of reality.

So yeah, we will carry on understanding.


----------



## innit (Mar 3, 2010)

Pingu said:


> can you conceed that "normal" war fighting* and what they did to the buldger kid are very different things? not the outcome but the motivation and intent
> 
> * i.e not some fucked up shit like what ze germans did during ww2



my understanding is that "normal" war behaviour (ie what happens in most wars) involves substantial amounts of torture and rape

edit to add link


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> Everyone is here because they like to express their opinoins. It doesnt matter if they disagree with you, there is no reason to be insulting to some one you do not know.
> I said what i did because i think anyone who kills a human being should be killed them selves, but obviously not in this country anymore. so the next best thing is to keep them in a secure unit.
> 
> Tell me of a ten year old who doesnt know that killing a 2 year old is bad.
> ...



It's normal on this board.  The bad language is reserved for anyone who expresses any populist or right wing sentiments or opinions or who may (heaven forbid) read any right wing newspaper.  It's OK to enjoy right wingers dying (even on a day when a joke left winger died ).

What many people on here forget is that their views are actually hugely in the minority.  They're nearly always so green they haven't lived, also


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> Everyone is here because they like to express their opinoins. It doesnt matter if they disagree with you, there is no reason to be insulting to some one you do not know.
> I said what i did because i think anyone who kills a human being should be killed them selves, but obviously not in this country anymore. so the next best thing is to keep them in a secure unit.
> 
> *Tell me of a ten year old who doesnt know that killing a 2 year old is bad.*
> ...



Errr...Venables and Thompson?

Have a look at that link I posted about infant brain development.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> It's normal on this board.  The bad language is reserved for anyone who expresses any populist or right wing sentiments or opinions or who may (heaven forbid) read any right wing newspaper.  It's OK to enjoy right wingers dying (even on a day when a joke left winger died ).
> 
> What many people on here forget is that their views are actually hugely in the minority.  They're nearly always so green they haven't lived, also



Why are you so scared of thinking?


----------



## Jonti (Mar 3, 2010)

> The bad language is reserved for anyone who expresses any populist or right wing sentiments


and outright liars, you fetid plate of rhino dung!


----------



## Pingu (Mar 3, 2010)

its ye


----------



## bigbry (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Any upbringing can affect anyone in any way.  It does not teach you to kill.
> 
> Being violent and torturing someone are completely different.  What the kids did involved thought - I very much doubt they were taught that at home regardless of how poor their upbringing was.



It probably didn't involve any thought as you and I know it.  I don't believe that they thought this through - it just became a series of events that followed each other and got out of hand.

Two children from their background on a different moral compass to you or I will go along with each other and try to out do each other.

None of us know why one of them has been 'called back' but I consider that as one of them seems to be doing OK in the outside world that the release was a success (the other one's not been in trouble as far as we know).

He's only 27 but while one of them is still keeping to his conditions I consider their release to be justified.  The people on here (and elsewhere on the internet) who say children know right from wrong haven't had much dealings with kids. You are a result of your upbringing and no one should be condemned at 10 years old because they were born into the wrong household.  

None of us have any choice about our parents or upbringing and can only really affect from our mid-teens


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Errr...Venables and Thompson?



And Mary Bell.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 3, 2010)

ffs gunneradt, when you're not around, we merrily get on with merciless internecine flame-wars.

What makes you think you're so special, eh?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

bigbry said:


> It probably didn't involve any thought as you and I know it.  I don't believe that they thought this through - it just became a series of events that followed each other and got out of hand.
> 
> Two children from their background on a different moral compass to you or I will go along with each other and try to out do each other.
> 
> ...



It's a difficult one.  Despite what I may have posted, I have never joined any groups wanting them dead (though I doubt anyone would shed any tears).

However, I fully understand the feelings of those who do want them exterminated - especially the family of the victim (though they weren't over endowed with brain cells either).  It's a normal human reaction to that kind of crime.


----------



## povmcdov (Mar 3, 2010)

I had someone at work saying to me that they should have brought back hanging for them. It didnt seem to bother them that they would be hanging 10 year olds. 

They were ranting about there being no deterrent against murder without the death penalty, so I asked them whether they knew what the murder rate was like in the US. 

Their angry reply? "Are you going to quote statistics at me, cos I'm not a statistics person"

This was a supposedly intelligent person.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

Jonti said:


> ffs gunneradt, when you're not around, we merrily get on with merciless internecine flame-wars.
> 
> What makes you think you're so special, eh?



Right Wingers on these boards habitually suffer from massive persecution complexes, they never seem to realise that people on these boards actively love being bastards to other people on these boards regardless of politics.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> However, *I fully understand the feelings of those who do want them exterminated *- especially the family of the victim (though they weren't over endowed with brain cells either).  It's a normal human reaction to that kind of crime.



You fully understand then? By your definition that means you defend those who want to exterminate them? Did you undertand those who wanted to kill them when they were 10 years old too? Because as you know......


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

YouSir said:


> Right Wingers on these boards habitually suffer from massive persecution complexes, they never seem to realise that people on these boards actively love being bastards to other people on these boards regardless of politics.



ha ha it doesn't bother me at all - Im very thick skinned.  I enjoy winding up the 'pink' brigade on here.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> You fully understand then? By your definition that means you defend those who want to exterminate them? Did you undertand those who wanted to kill them when they were 10 years old too? Because as you know......



If it had been your child killed, you would probably feel the same.  It's a quite normal reaction.


----------



## dylans (Mar 3, 2010)

> They're nearly always so green they haven't lived, also



you stupid fucking muppet


----------



## Spion (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ha ha it doesn't bother me at all - Im very thick


that's more accurate


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

dylans said:


> you stupid fucking muppet



Oh I see Mr Eloquent is back


----------



## dylans (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> If it had been your child killed, you would probably feel the same.  It's a quite normal reaction.



Fuck you. How the fuck do you know?


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ha ha it doesn't bother me at all - Im very thick skinned.  I enjoy winding up the 'pink' brigade on here.



You've not really wound anyone up though have you? Some people just think you're a dick.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 3, 2010)

Why is this news?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> If it had been your child killed, you would probably feel the same.  It's a quite normal reaction.


Actually no. Unless you have been in that situation, just shut up. I'm not left wing, you don't wind me up, but I do think you have very limited life experience and poor critical thinking skills.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

dylans said:


> Fuck you. How the fuck do you know?



why don't you go and dance on Winston Churchill's grave and I'll dance on Michael Foot's glasses (he won't need them anymore)


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> It's normal on this board.  The bad language is reserved for anyone who expresses any populist or right wing sentiments or opinions or who may (heaven forbid) read any right wing newspaper.



That's absolute nonsense tbh. 

If you express an opinion and it's ill thought out with nothing to back it up it'll be challenged is more like the rule here. 

It's one of the things that makes these boards different to many others IME


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Actually no. Unless you have been in that situation, just shut up. I'm not left wing, you don't wind me up, but I do think you have very limited life experience and poor critical thinking skills.



well I'm making a judgment based on what it might be like to have a child murdered - which is a perfectly sensible thing to think about.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> If it had been your child killed, you would probably feel the same.  It's a quite normal reaction.



Yes, you see, I would and could UNDERSTAND why they would feel like this. Unlike you who seems incapable of seeing that understanding doesn't mean condoning. Because I couldn't condone grown men killing a 10 year old child any more than I would condone two 10 year olds killing a child of 3.


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 3, 2010)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Why is this news?



Well for a start it raises a question over the anonymity granted to him and how/if that can be upheld.


----------



## dylans (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> why don't you go and dance on Winston Churchill's grave and I'll dance on Michael Foot's glasses (he won't need them anymore)



Done that already. Now tell us more about how we haven't lived. Muppet boy


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> well I'm making a judgment based on what it might be like to have a child murdered - which is a perfectly sensible thing to think about.



Although not one within your powers perhaps; I doubt anyone who hadn't had the actual experience could ever project themselves into the parents position. Quite insulting to suggest otherwise wouldn't you say?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> well I'm making a judgment based on what it might be like to have a child murdered - which is a perfectly sensible thing to think about.


You know nothing. All you can do is use your limited experience and limited imagination and you are way off.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

dylans said:


> Done that already. Now tell us more about how we haven't lived. Muppet boy



Kermit?  or Miss Piggy - see ya


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 3, 2010)

Chip Barm said:


> Well for a start it raises a question over the anonymity granted to him and how/if that can be upheld.



Wrong answer.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> You know nothing. All you can do is use your limited experience and limited imagination and you are way off.



well I suspect 99.9% of parents have a limited experience of having a child murdered, don't you?


----------



## Pingu (Mar 3, 2010)

YouSir said:


> You've not really wound anyone up though have you? Some people just think you're a dick.


 

though you have to admit that if its a troll its working pretty well


----------



## Pingu (Mar 3, 2010)

and iswydt  sneaky but good move


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

Pingu said:


> though you have to admit that if its a troll its working pretty well



Certainly taking up the afternoon nicely, aye, wouldn't really object if it was a troll, should see me through to the pub this evening at this rate.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 3, 2010)

Whereas fairy is the mother of a 2 year old - and would automatically demand the most extreme punishment for any who would consider such a crime.

It's not a mindset of rightwingery or hate.   Although sadly she is a rangers supporter so there might be an element of it.

This shit is only in the news to deflect from Ashcroft.   

How much pain must it cause the family?   The media are shameless.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ha ha it doesn't bother me at all - Im very thick skinned.  I enjoy winding up the 'pink' brigade on here.



All you've done is make yourself out to be a prick.  Well done.

*slow hand clap*


----------



## Dancin_Fairy (Mar 3, 2010)

Of course they knew what they were doing for goodness sake. what do u think happens when u put a defencless boy on railway lines and keep him there  til a train arrives?.......takes a few loose screws to go through with such an evil act. Having a challenged upbringing cannot be an excuse for that. Im sure people who have been commited of murder had lovely little upbringings and normal parents, so thats put that out the window.

Im sure if people who killed other people were hung, im sure the number of murders would dramitically decrease.
Of course there are other ways( all that rehabilitation stuff), but if u had 100% proof of the accused, then thats my solution. an eye for an eye etc...

When you grow fruit and vegetables, they are all from the same soil and are waterd the same and everything else is the same, but they dont all turn out the same, you still get some bad ones. Its the same with us humans.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 3, 2010)

Oh, look, we're now in
_Politics, protest and current affairs  > UK politics, current affairs and news​_


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Mar 3, 2010)

Jonti said:


> Oh, look, we're now in
> _Politics, protest and current affairs  > UK politics, current affairs and news​_


  Next stop, BIN


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> Of course they knew what they were doing for goodness sake. what do u think happens when u put a defencless boy on railway lines and keep him there  til a train arrives?.......takes a few loose screws to go through with such an evil act. Having a challenged upbringing cannot be an excuse for that. Im sure people who have been commited of murder had lovely little upbringings and normal parents, so thats put that out the window.
> 
> Im sure if people who killed other people were hung, im sure the number of murders would dramitically decrease.
> Of course there are other ways( all that rehabilitation stuff), but if u had 100% proof of the accused, then thats my solution. an eye for an eye etc...
> ...



Did you read that link I posted?


----------



## Dancin_Fairy (Mar 3, 2010)

excuse me....but i dont actually support a team any more...i favour rangers yes, but i dont buy any of there products so therefor i do not support them. I cant afford to lol.

I just watch as  neutral.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> Of course they knew what they were doing for goodness sake. what do u think happens when u put a defencless boy on railway lines and keep him there  til a train arrives?.......takes a few loose screws to go through with such an evil act. Having a challenged upbringing cannot be an excuse for that. Im sure people who have been commited of murder had lovely little upbringings and normal parents, so thats put that out the window.
> 
> Im sure if people who killed other people were hung, im sure the number of murders would dramitically decrease.
> Of course there are other ways( all that rehabilitation stuff), but if u had 100% proof of the accused, then thats my solution. an eye for an eye etc...
> ...



Well that would explain the minute murder rates in countries with the death penalty, right..?

And no one has thus far attempted to excuse or validate their actions, just to understand them, a concept which seems to be new to some here. And people aren't fruit and veg, there's a vast range of social experiences in growing up and plenty of people find themselves in horrendous situations where they're taught none of the social conventions which we consider to be positive. Most don't go out and kill, mercifully, but for those who do you can almost always find experiences which are fucked up beyond most peoples conceptions of life.

Understanding why those circumstances existed in the first place is the only way to deal with the results they offer up.


----------



## Dancin_Fairy (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Did you read that link I posted?



Yea,  i did, but it didnt make me feel any different.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It won't.  Records are not kept in any system which is available to an enhanced CRB check.  As they are administered locally, it would mean asking _every_ parking authority in the UK if they had any information for every enhanced CRB check...
> 
> They are also attached to _vehicles_ and registered keepers not individual drivers.  Even DVLA driver records are not routinely checked as part of the enhanced CRB checks so far as I am aware.



Fair enough. I didn't look it up because the important thing is that, even if such fines did show on a CRB check, it wouldn't mean that people lost their jobs.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> Yea,  i did, but it didnt make me feel any different.



So despite knowing that abusive and neglectful backgrounds have an effect on brain development, meaning that some children may not develop the ability to control their impulses, understand their emotions, know right from wrong, despite that, you still think that "they knew what they were doing"?

Despite it being known that



> abused or neglected children may:
> 
> *Be unable to control their emotions and have frequent outbursts*
> Be quiet and submissive
> ...



(my emphasis)


despite this, you still hold to your belief?

If you have some evidence to back up your belief, please post it btw


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

> Children who have experienced chronic abuse and neglect during their first few years may live in a persistent state of hyper-arousal or dissociation, anticipating threats around every corner, and their ability to benefit from social, emotional, and cognitive experiences may be impaired (Perry, 1996). The various regions of the brain can not grow without being activated, and certain regions can not be activated when others are. To learn and incorporate new information, whether it be a lesson in the classroom or a new social experience, the child's brain must be in a state of "attentive calm," a state the traumatized child rarely achieves. It is not uncommon for teachers who work with traumatized children to observe that the children are really smart, but they do not learn easily; they are often diagnosed with learning disabilities (Perry, 1996). Children who have not been able to develop healthy attachments with their caregivers, and whose early emotional experiences have not laid the necessary groundwork for healthy emotional development, may have a limited capacity for empathy (Perry, 1997). *The ability to feel remorse and empathy are built on experience. In the extreme, if a child feels no emotional attachment to any human being, he can not be expected to feel remorse for hurting or even killing someone.* Perry (1997) offers the example of a 15-year-old boy who felt no remorse for having committed murder. The boy had been neglected and humiliated by his primary caretakers as a child. "He is literally emotionally retarded. *The part of his brain which would have allowed him to feel connected to other human beings-empathy-simply did not develop*" (Perry, 1997, p. 4).



more


----------



## zenie (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Any upbringing can affect anyone in any way.  It does not teach you to kill.
> 
> Being violent and torturing someone are completely different.  What the kids did involved thought - I very much doubt they were taught that at home regardless of how poor their upbringing was.



You don't seem to know much about the case do you?



Dancin_Fairy said:


> Of course they knew what they were doing for goodness sake. what do u think happens when u put a defencless boy on railway lines and keep him there  til a train arrives?.......takes a few loose screws to go through with such an evil act. Having a challenged upbringing cannot be an excuse for that. Im sure people who have been commited of murder had lovely little upbringings and normal parents, so thats put that out the window.
> 
> Im sure if people who killed other people were hung, im sure the number of murders would dramitically decrease.
> Of course there are other ways( all that rehabilitation stuff), but if u had 100% proof of the accused, then thats my solution. an eye for an eye etc...
> ...



No, nor you. You say about hanging, when someone has already mentioned that the US has a higher murder rate, yet they have the death penalty. 

Comparing bringing up children to growing veg is rather bizarre as well.

I'd recommend you both read the case and exactly what was happening in these boys lives before commenting further. Unless you like being ignorant and spouting crap?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Well I'll stick with the vast majority - not the hopeless urban minority



You mean your *assumed* "vast majority".


----------



## weltweit (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> So despite knowing that abusive and neglectful backgrounds have an effect on brain development, meaning that some children may not develop the ability to control their impulses, understand their emotions, know right from wrong, despite that, you still think that "they knew what they were doing"?...



Suggests that once damaged, damaged for life....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Love to hate, bottom of the rung, lowest common denominator, white van man drivel.
> 
> You wank over The Sun, yes?



More likely to be "into", mate.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Suggests that once damaged, damaged for life....



If you read that link I posted...



> In order to heal a "damaged" or altered brain, interventions must activate those portions of the brain that have been altered (Perry, 2000c). Because brain functioning is altered by repeated experiences that strengthen and sensitize neuronal pathways, interventions can not be constrained to weekly therapy appointments. Interventions must address the totality of the child's life, providing frequent, consistent "replacement" experiences so that the child's brain can begin to incorporate a new environment-one that is safe, predictable and nurturing.
> 
> Although early interventions show the most promise for significant recovery from abuse and neglect, later interventions are not futile. However, as children get older, recovery from lost or altered brain functioning may be slower and less complete than recovery attempted earlier in the children's lives (Shore, 1997). But some recovery is certainly possible; while a negative environment may contribute to deficits, a positive environment can contribute to growth (Teicher, 2000).


----------



## weltweit (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> If you read that link I posted...



Quite a lot of waffle in that, not much certainty.


----------



## Dan U (Mar 3, 2010)

dylans said:


> You know, sometimes I fucking love this site.
> 
> Really, I love the fact that the posters on here, by and large, have a decency and compassion that is sadly missing in other places. I love the fact that vile wankers like gunneradt  get told to fuck off



same tbh

especially when i've seen some of the reaction to this story elsewhere on the internet.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Suggests that once damaged, damaged for life....


Not neccessarily. My eldest was really violently treated (broken bones, burns, permanent facial scarring) by her biological parents but that ended when she was five. She is an amazing mother, empathy abounding etc.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Quite a lot of waffle in that, not much certainty.



It includes references for you to follow up.  Not sure what else you want really.  Have you got any evidence for your views?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> Of course they knew what they were doing for goodness sake. what do u think happens when u put a defencless boy on railway lines and keep him there  til a train arrives?.......takes a few loose screws to go through with such an evil act. Having a challenged upbringing cannot be an excuse for that. Im sure people who have been commited of murder had lovely little upbringings and normal parents, so thats put that out the window.
> 
> Im sure if people who killed other people were hung, im sure the number of murders would dramitically decrease.
> Of course there are other ways( all that rehabilitation stuff), but if u had 100% proof of the accused, then thats my solution. an eye for an eye etc...
> ...





this has to be a troll surely?


----------



## weltweit (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Not neccessarily. My eldest was really violently treated (broken bones, burns, permanent facial scarring) by her biological parents but that ended when she was five. She is an amazing mother, empathy abounding etc.



Sounds good.


----------



## Dancin_Fairy (Mar 3, 2010)

I suppose you are correct in some way. 
Anyone is capable of anything. The world is full of suprises. There will never be world peace with billions of people in it...Why waste time fighting for it, you could never please everyone Theres no point trying to find out the way ppl were brought up bcoz that doesnt define anything. So what they had bad upbringings, hundreds of people do, but they dont lure, snare and killa 2 year old. They were evil . as simple as that. Murderers dont deserve to be given excuses. Why waste time on trying to find the reason behind this will never solve it because everyone is different and therefor not that same 'upbringing' will result in the same outcome. Plus im sure there been worse up bringings than theirs and they have turned out to be civilised professionals or whatever it is to be deemed normal.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> It includes references for you to follow up.  Not sure what else you want really.  Have you got any evidence for your views?



I haven't really got a view.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

I would add psychologists didn't put my daughter back together. Love and security did.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> When you grow fruit and vegetables, they are all from the same soil and are waterd the same and everything else is the same, but they dont all turn out the same, you still get some bad ones. Its the same with us humans.



Jesus fucking christ.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> Of course they knew what they were doing for goodness sake.



Does this really matter in a practical sense? I mean locking them up was surely out of the need to protect the public. Whether they did or didn't know what they were doing they still did it, and as such the general public has a right to protection from this happening again.  

Having said that - as blagsta says - the environment that they boys grew up in couldnt not influence their development. The deterimental effects of early abuse / deprivation are established facts. I think this has implications for the type of corrective enviroment that should be offered to these boys whilst in prison. Also there is something hopeful in trying to help damaged individuals, and there is some evidence that this is possible.


----------



## rapattaque (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Not the whole lot but the first paragraph pretty much summed it up.



Well in that case you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself because you've just had the opportunity to learn about and get to grips with a concept that is currently clearly far too big for your head and you've turned it down. For your own benefit go back and read the article.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 3, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> _Doli incapax_


That's the one, ta. 


mrs quoad said:


> Erm, just to clarify, that's no _criminal_ responsibility.
> 
> A child younger than 10yrs old could still receive one hell of a lot of long-term intervention, and - potentially - be kept in a very secure environment, off the back of something they'd done. I believe they could also be very firmly engaged with a youth offending team, in such a situation.


Yep, criminal responsibility was what I was referring to.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> When you grow fruit and vegetables, they are all from the same soil and are waterd the same and everything else is the same, but they dont all turn out the same, you still get some bad ones. Its the same with us humans.



If you throw fruit against the wall it tends to bruise also.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> When you grow fruit and vegetables, they are all from the same soil and are waterd the same and everything else is the same, but they dont all turn out the same, you still get some bad ones. Its the same with us humans.



You think your children are vegetables? Are you anchorage's mum?


----------



## mentalchik (Mar 3, 2010)

definite whiff of troll on this thread...................


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> When you grow fruit and vegetables, they are all from the same soil and are waterd the same and everything else is the same, but they dont all turn out the same, you still get some bad ones. Its the same with us humans.



This is straight out of the BNP 'green apples are different from red ones' Book Of Humanity.


----------



## Pingu (Mar 3, 2010)

mentalchik said:


> definite whiff of troll on this thread...................


----------



## YouSir (Mar 3, 2010)

Well, troll or not I'm off out to the pub, keep the flame burning til I get back.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> what a moron
> 
> not love to hate - just standing up for right and wrong = not defending scum like some on here



Who are you to stand in judgement of Thompson and Venables? They wouldn't have been released if they hadn't been adjudged to have paid their debt to society.

Your fake outrage is pathetic.


----------



## mentalchik (Mar 3, 2010)

Pingu said:


>



Yes rly.........be nice i'm tired and have a fucking cold ! 

(also i rarely have courage to post in here)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

DarthSydodyas said:


> iirc, not even the victims mother disagrees with you.   She, and I suspect like many others, have/had difficulty with the length of the sentencing.



Victim's families often do, but given the nature of the crime and the nature of the offenders, the judge had no statutory remit for a whole life tariff.
You'd have thought that if so very many people had an issue with child murderers getting too short a sentence, they'd have successfully lobbied Parliament for a statutory whole life tariff by now, wouldn't you?
Well, no such thing has occurred.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Oh the old 'the kids never stood a chance' sterotype.  You know what? I'm glad that the majority view is the way it is with certain groups.  Putting normal human beings at risk for the sake of rehabilitating those who can't decipher right and wrong shouldn't be tolerated.



If they hadn't been rehabilitated, they wouldn't have been considered fit for release.


----------



## dylans (Mar 3, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who are you to stand in judgement of Thompson and Venables? They wouldn't have been released if they hadn't been adjudged to have paid their debt to society.
> 
> Your fake outrage is pathetic.



This.
 I would add that your fake outrage is not only pathetic but deeply offensive.

 This thread is upsetting me. I'm off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Is that so?
> 
> I suspect that if the re-offence had been minor the authorities may have been more willing to release that information.



Fuck me, more pontificating on something you know nothing about.

Information is *never* released in these cases *until* the putative offence has been investigated and the process of re-incarceration (if necessary) has been carried out, so as not to "excite" hysterical speculation.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> If they hadn't been rehabilitated, they wouldn't have been considered fit for release.



Not sure of this, rehabilitated implies that we have some sort of idea of what a healthy 'normal' person is like. I'd say that they were deemed to be of low risk before they could be released, but being rehabilitated and of low risk are two different things. I'm not sure were anywhere near the stage were we can undo all off the effects of early environmental damage.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> I suppose you are correct in some way.
> Anyone is capable of anything. The world is full of suprises. There will never be world peace with billions of people in it...Why waste time fighting for it, you could never please everyone Theres no point trying to find out the way ppl were brought up bcoz that doesnt define anything. So what they had bad upbringings, hundreds of people do, but they dont lure, snare and killa 2 year old. They were evil . as simple as that. Murderers dont deserve to be given excuses. Why waste time on trying to find the reason behind this will never solve it because everyone is different and therefor not that same 'upbringing' will result in the same outcome. Plus im sure there been worse up bringings than theirs and they have turned out to be civilised professionals or whatever it is to be deemed normal.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I would add psychologists didn't put my daughter back together. Love and security did.



Which is what psychological studies show works.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Don't be ridiculous - you cannot compare killing people in war.



You can compare releasing rehabilitated murderers with letting soldiers leave the armed forces with only the vague not toward debriefing that they have to manage with.
Me, I'd feel safer with a rehabilitated killer than with some of the blokes I served in N.I. with, even nearly 30 years later.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2010)

weltweit - some children recover completely from attachment disorder and other mental frailties caused by a lack of parenting when they are young, others don't. The research into this is still in its infancy (ironic term, considering) so it is difficult to say for sure how long or what level of neglect/abuse will result in permanent damage that cannot be healed no matter what. It's obviously a difficult subject to research because there are no baselines. 

What is clear though is that a loving family can work wonders for many children who have undergone hideous childhood. Sadly, many children who are taken into care are _so_ damaged that finding a suitable home for them is immensely difficult so they end up being cared for by the State which is not likely to help their sense of self-worth.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I would add psychologists didn't put my daughter back together. Love and security did.



from that link



> In general, children who have been abused or neglected need nurturance, stability, predictability, understanding, and support (Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption and Dependent Care, 2000). They may need frequent, repeated experiences of these kinds to begin altering their view of the world from one that is uncaring or hostile to one that is caring and supportive. Until that view begins to take hold in the child's mind, the child may not be able to truly engage in a positive relationship. And the longer the child lived in the abusive or neglectful environment, the harder it will be to convince his brain that his world can change. But one thing we have learned from research is that environment does make a difference. Consistent nurturing from caregivers who receive training and support may offer the best hope for the children who need it most.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

Wasn't having a go at psychologists. I have been asked more than once (not on this thread) what 'school' of psychology or psychiatric intervention worked for her.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Wasn't having a go at psychologists. I have been asked more than once (not on this thread) what 'school' of psychology or psychiatric intervention worked for her.



fairynuff


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

I think sometimes people think the solution for very damaged children is very complicated. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

Dancin_Fairy said:


> Of course they knew what they were doing for goodness sake. what do u think happens when u put a defencless boy on railway lines and keep him there  til a train arrives?.......takes a few loose screws to go through with such an evil act. Having a challenged upbringing cannot be an excuse for that. Im sure people who have been commited of murder had lovely little upbringings and normal parents, so thats put that out the window.


You need to make up your mind whether you believe them to be evil, or whether they were mad.


> Im sure if people who killed other people were hung, im sure the number of murders would dramitically decrease.


Didn't work for the nigh on a thousand years we had a death sentence of the statute books. What makes *you* think it would?


> Of course there are other ways( all that rehabilitation stuff), but if u had 100% proof of the accused, then thats my solution. an eye for an eye etc...


You never have 100% proof, you only have interpretations of facts, with guesswork filling in the spaces.
So, you've either got to accept that the death sentence isn't a deterrent, and that innocent people *will* die, or you've got to accept that the current system is the best compromise we've got, at the moment.


> When you grow fruit and vegetables, they are all from the same soil and are waterd the same and everything else is the same, but they dont all turn out the same, you still get some bad ones. Its the same with us humans.


Simplistic. Things might be all the same as far as you can see, but that doesn't mean they are.


----------



## pgb (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> What many people on here forget is that their views are actually hugely in the minority.



So? As they say, "Someone who's right is in a majority of one!" ... Who cares what the mouth breathing _Scum_ and _Daily Wail_ readers think?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Suggests that once damaged, damaged for life....



Not really, because with hard work a person can be "re-wired"/"re-wire" themselves, to some extent at least.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Jesus fucking christ.



Shut it, you courgette!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Not sure of this, rehabilitated implies that we have some sort of idea of what a healthy 'normal' person is like. I'd say that they were deemed to be of low risk before they could be released, but being rehabilitated and of low risk are two different things. I'm not sure were anywhere near the stage were we can undo all off the effects of early environmental damage.



In the context of satisfying the conditions of a licence, "rehabilitated" does indeed mean "judge to be of low risk...", but it also means that the licencee has acknowledged and accepted responsibility for their crime (or has been judged to by a panel of psychiatrists and psychologists.
They're still a risk, but so are we all.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not really, because with hard work a person can be "re-wired"/"re-wire" themselves, to some extent at least.



They say the Yorkshire Ripper is sane now - shall we take a chance?

The re-wiring depends on whether you feel some people are innately wired wrongly.  I reckon Ian Brady probably was - I reckon he would be re-wiring resistant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> They say the Yorkshire Ripper is sane now - shall we take a chance?


Sutcliffe was given a "whole life" tariff. Only a pardon could free him, and that's highly unlikely, don't you think?



> The re-wiring depends on whether you feel some people are innately wired wrongly.  I reckon Ian Brady probably was - I reckon he would be re-wiring resistant.


What you "reckon" is immaterial, as Brady was confined until dead, we'll never know (although I'm sure you will speculate).


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> They say the Yorkshire Ripper is sane now - shall we take a chance?
> 
> The re-wiring depends on whether you feel some people are innately wired wrongly.  I reckon Ian Brady probably was - I reckon he would be re-wiring resistant.



There is a difference between crimes that adults commit (when they may well be beyond redemption) and children who are still fairly malleable at that age. 

Have you got any evidence behind your 'reckoning' that Ian Brady would be rewiring resistant beyond a feeling in your water?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

trashpony said:


> There is a difference between crimes that adults commit (when they may well be beyond redemption) and children who are still fairly malleable at that age.
> 
> Have you got any evidence behind your 'reckoning' that Ian Brady would be rewiring resistant beyond a feeling in your water?



ha ha I reckon he might be - we'll never know.

I must admit that I do believe some are born innately 'bad' and will turn out the way they do regardless of how they're brought up.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> In the context of satisfying the conditions of a licence, "rehabilitated" does indeed mean "judge to be of low risk...",



Though in the context of the words as defined and outside of a purely legalistic / forensic context 'rehabilitated' means recovered (i.e. returned to a prior normal state). And (1) I really don't think that we can say that our prison system is capable of this level of care. In the rhetoric of the system 'rehabilitated' may have come to mean the same thing as being of 'low risk'. But what I am saying is that the two things are actually distinct; I know lots of troubled, disturbed and damaged people of low risk. Also (2) in the context of these two I don't think the word is 'rehabilitated' even right as I'm not sure there was a prior well adjusted state to which they could be returned.

e2a: I am all for their return to the community if they are of low risk, I'm just not for pretending that this means they are 'rehabilitated' (in the sense in which I am using the word here).


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ha ha I reckon he might be - we'll never know.
> 
> I must admit that I do believe some are born innately 'bad' and will turn out the way they do regardless of how they're brought up.



Like Damien in the Omen. I bet you love that film.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Though in the context of the words as defined and outside of a purely legalistic / forensic context 'rehabilitated' means recovered (i.e. returned to a prior normal state). And (1) I really don't think that we can say that our prison system is capable of this level of care. In the rhetoric of the system 'rehabilitated' may have come to mean the same thing as being of 'low risk'. But what I am saying is that the two things are actually distinct; I know lots of troubled, disturbed and damaged people of low risk. Also (2) *in the context of these two I don't think the word is 'rehabilitated' even right as I'm not sure there was a prior well adjusted state to which they could be returned.*
> 
> e2a: I am all for their return to the community if they are of low risk, I'm just not for pretending that this means they are 'rehabilitated' (in the sense in which I am using the word here).



Indeed. 

This is a problem in drug work too.  We talk about recovery and rehab all the time, yet a lot of people can't recover as they never had the chance to be "normal" in the first place.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Indeed.
> 
> This is a problem in drug work too.  We talk about recovery and rehab all the time, yet a lot of people can't recover as they never had the chance to be "normal" in the first place.



Although somehow I am much more comfortable for the term rehabilitated and recovered within health care settings than I am when this is used in forsensic settings. 

In general, I think the terms progress, development, growth..., and the like, are maybe better. Thogh of course this doesn't fit well within the black and white legalistic definitions  .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Though in the context of the words as defined and outside of a purely legalistic / forensic context 'rehabilitated' means recovered (i.e. returned to a prior normal state). And (1) I really don't think that we can say that our prison system is capable of this level of care. In the rhetoric of the system 'rehabilitated' may have come to mean the same thing as being of 'low risk'. But what I am saying is that the two things are actually distinct; I know lots of troubled, disturbed and damaged people of low risk. Also (2) in the context of these two I don't think the word is 'rehabilitated' even right as I'm not sure there was a prior well adjusted state to which they could be returned.
> 
> e2a: I am all for their return to the community if they are of low risk, I'm just not for pretending that this means they are 'rehabilitated' (in the sense in which I am using the word here).



Ah, the semiology of rehabilitation! 
For the criminal justice system it means one thing, for society-at-large something different, and although the twain meet *somewhat* they're never going to be exactly the same thing, because the interests of society will never quite accord to the interests of the criminal justice system (which is, after all, a mechanism of social control).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Like Damien in the Omen. I bet you love that film.



Yeah, but that was his Satanic DNA, rather than the way he was nurtured (although all those suicidal psycho nannies couldn't have helped).


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I must admit that I do believe some are born innately 'bad' and will turn out the way they do regardless of how they're brought up.



And do they have red eyes and horns and stuff?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Although somehow I am much more comfortable for the term rehabilitated and recovered within health care settings than I am when this is used in forsensic settings.
> 
> In general, I think the terms progress, development, growth..., and the like, are maybe better. Thogh of course this doesn't fit well within the black and white legalistic definitions  .



Well, we need to (although people mostly *don't* in my experience) remember that those "black and white legalistic definitions" tend to be generalised so as to be broadly applicable, so they're only ever really (IMO) a "stepping-off point" to the particular/individual.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> And do they have red eyes and horns and stuff?


Don't get him onto horns, he'll start on about sex offenders!!


----------



## toggle (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> They say the Yorkshire Ripper is sane now - shall we take a chance?
> 
> The re-wiring depends on whether you feel some people are innately wired wrongly.  I reckon Ian Brady probably was - I reckon he would be re-wiring resistant.



iirc, he was never deemed insane to start off with. he was locked up as being responsible for his crimes, not for being mentally ill.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> And do they have red eyes and horns and stuff?



I'm not sure - what do you reckon?  I think there's little doubt some are born with an innate tendency towards violence.

If you believe that if every household was perfect without a shred of vioence and that every child had the same upbringing then we'd have no murderers I think you're sadly mistaken.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I'm not sure - what do you reckon?  I think there's little doubt some are born with an innate tendency towards violence.
> 
> If you believe that if every household was perfect without a shred of vioence and that every child had the same upbringing then we'd have no murderers I think you're sadly mistaken.



All human beings have an innate tendency towards violence.  The interesting question (to my mind) is why do some of us develop an ability to control and contain our murderous impulses yet others are compelled to act them out.  However, circumstances can cause most people to carry out extreme violent acts, just read some history books!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

toggle said:


> iirc, he was never deemed insane to start off with. he was locked up as being responsible for his crimes, not for being mentally ill.


Yep, he was originally at Parkhurst, but was transferred to (IIRC) Broadmoor after being judged to be schizophrenic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I'm not sure - what do you reckon?  I think there's little doubt some are born with an innate tendency towards violence.


Everyone is born with an innate tendency to violence. What makes the difference is how we're socialised.
I realise it's very comfortable to believe that genetics play a part, but so far nothing has shown up to substantiate such beliefs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> All human beings have an innate tendency towards violence.  The interesting question (to my mind) is why do some of us develop an ability to control and contain our murderous impulses yet others are compelled to act them out.  However, circumstances can cause most people to carry out extreme violent acts, just read some history books!



Socialisation.
You can be socialised to be a law-abiding person, and yet go off to fight a war and kill (with, obviously, varying degrees of post-event trauma), or do appalling things in the name of an abstract concept.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I'm not sure - what do you reckon?  I think there's little doubt some are born with an innate tendency towards violence.
> 
> If you believe that if every household was perfect without a shred of vioence and that every child had the same upbringing then we'd have no murderers I think you're sadly mistaken.



Of course some people are born with more of a genetic predisposition to become violent in later life than others. But that on its own isn't set in stone that they will end up that way. Not all children respond to domestic violence the same. Some retreat into themselves and find it difficult to relate to others while others themselves go on to become violent. 

But nobody is born 'bad'. It's a mixture of genetics and experiences that shape us into who we become throughout our lives. Good and Evil is for religion and Star wars, mate.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2010)

There is certainly a nature/nurture thing - my son has certain qualities that I think he 'came' with - the issue really is whether a loving upbringing can mitigate against the 'bad' ones while encouraging the good. Whether someone is born 'evil' is something that is impossible to assess


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Of course some people are born with more of a genetic predisposition to become violent in later life than others. But that on its own isn't set in stone that they will end up that way. Not all children respond to domestic violence the same. Some retreat into themselves and find it difficult to relate to others while others themselves go on to become violent.
> 
> But nobody is born 'bad'. It's a mixture of genetics and experiences that shape us into who we become throughout our lives. Good and Evil is for religion and Star wars, mate.



It's pure conjecture - no-one knows.  Some people end up bad for no reason whatsoever and we will never know whether there was a possible life where they wouldn't end up bad.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Socialisation.
> You can be socialised to be a law-abiding person, and yet go off to fight a war and kill (with, obviously, varying degrees of post-event trauma), or do appalling things in the name of an abstract concept.



socialisation and attachment


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> It's pure conjecture - no-one knows.  Some people end up bad for no reason whatsoever and we will never know whether there was a possible life where they wouldn't end up bad.



That's rubbish. There is huge amounts of work trying to find out why so that we can help society have less 'bad' people in future


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> It's pure conjecture - no-one knows.  Some people end up bad for no reason whatsoever and we will never know whether there was a possible life where they wouldn't end up bad.



Not really true.  While there are a lot of unknowns, it is pretty much accepted that neglect and abuse in childhood affects brain development and impulse control.  Have a read of that link.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> It's pure conjecture - no-one knows.  Some people end up bad for no reason whatsoever and we will never know whether there was a possible life where they wouldn't end up bad.



How do you know there's 'no reason what-so-ever' ? That's conjecture also.

Take Fred West for instance. I guess he was born bad and his father making him watch as he raped his sisters had nothing to do with his attitudes towards women and sex later in his life, yeah?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

trashpony said:


> There is certainly a nature/nurture thing - my son has certain qualities that I think he 'came' with - the issue really is whether a loving upbringing can mitigate against the 'bad' ones while encouraging the good. Whether someone is born 'evil' is something that is impossible to assess



Children are certainly born with a temprament.  There is a huge latitude within this though.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Some people end up bad for no reason whatsoever



Examples please.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt]It's pure conjecture - no-one knows. Some people end up bad for no reason whatsoever and we will never know whether there was a possible life where they wouldn't end up bad.[/quote][QUOTE=trashpony said:


> That's rubbish. There is huge amounts of work trying to find out why so that we can help society have less 'bad' people in future



Its rubbish because badness is a value laden judgement negotiated and defined by humans; badness or goodness are not attributes existing independently of our definitions of them. A biological tendency towards aggression (for example) is just a biological tendency towards aggression. This isn't bad per se, but the expression of it in certain forms might be labelled, justifiably, as such.

e2a: Perhaps we could say that its possible to be born with certain temperamental characteristics that interact with certain environmental factors to create the possibility that one might develop in such a way as to transgress the norms of acceptable behaviour as intersubjectively defined and therefore end up being labelled as 'bad'. Bit of a mouthful though.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Children are certainly born with a temprament.  There is a huge latitude within this though.





CJohn said:


> Its rubbish because badness is a value laden judgement negotiated and defined by humans; badness or goodness are not attributes existing independently of our definitions of them. A biological tendency towards aggression (for example) is just a biological tendency towards aggression. This isn't bad per se, but the expression of it in certain forms might be labelled, justifiably, as such.
> 
> e2a: Perhaps we could say that its possible to be born with certain temperamental characteristics that interact with certain environmental factors to create the possibility that one might develop in such a way as to transgress the norms of acceptable behaviour as intersubjectively defined and therefore end up being labelled as 'bad'. Bit of a mouthful though.



It's a temperament, it's a predisposition to be interested in some things more than others. 

I was using the same words as gunneradt - I don't believe in bad/good dichotomies here. Hence the inverted commas.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

trashpony said:


> I was using the same words as gunneradt - I don't believe in bad/good dichotomies here. Hence the inverted commas.



Aye, I know. Apologies, I wasn't implying that you did think that, and it didn't come across like you did. I was just using your response to gunneradts (hence the quote), agreeing, and sort of saying "and another thing...". I've since added his original post in to put it in more context.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Aye, I know. Apologies, I wasn't implying that you did think that, and it didn't come across like you did. I was just using your response to gunneradts (hence the quote), agreeing, and sort of saying "and another thing...". I've since added his original post in to put it in more context.



Sorry, just wanted to be crystal clear on that point!


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Sorry, just wanted to be crystal clear on that point!



Rightly so  . Me too, hence the pedantic qualification!


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

I'm afraid you are all hypothesising

No-one knows how much badness is by birth by default.  Until the complete physiology of development is unraveled, there will be no such knowledge.

So hiow much time and effort do we spend trying to make bad people good?  Or do we just decide to exterminate?  There are plenty of pros in that argument.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2010)

*What* argument? You've not made one.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I'm afraid you are all hypothesising
> 
> No-one knows how much badness is by birth by default.  Until the complete physiology of development is unraveled, there will be no such knowledge.
> 
> So hiow much time and effort do we spend trying to make bad people good?  Or do we just decide to exterminate?  There are plenty of pros in that argument.



"how much badness"?  Is there a scale now?


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I'm afraid you are all hypothesising
> 
> No-one knows how much badness is by birth by default.  Until the complete physiology of development is unraveled, there will be no such knowledge.
> 
> So hiow much time and effort do we spend trying to make bad people good?  Or do we just decide to exterminate?  There are plenty of pros in that argument.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> "how much badness"?  Is there a scale now?



I'm guessing this kind of crime entails quite a bit of innate badness


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I'm guessing this kind of crime entails quite a bit of innate badness



That's right, you are guessing.  You have zero actual knowledge.  Is it fun being ignorant?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I'm guessing this kind of crime entails quite a bit of innate badness


Why do you keep guessing when there's a wealth of evidence to look at?


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I'm guessing this kind of crime entails quite a bit of innate badness



that is possibly the most ignorant statement I've ever read on urban. Well it's up there anyway


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why do you keep guessing when there's a wealth of evidence to look at?



Because it's pure conjecture.  There is no evidence either way.  UK popular opinion at all levels is dead against these 2 'men' and will always be so.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

trashpony said:


> that is possibly the most ignorant statement I've ever read on urban. Well it's up there anyway



Oh get off your high horse.  If you don't believe in innate badness then you have not achieved any qualifications at any level - let alone life


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

There is plenty of evidence. I don't know it in this case because I don't know the circumstances of the boys involved. I can 'guess', though. And it is a different kind of guess from yours, as it is based on what I know about child development.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Because it's pure conjecture.  There is no evidence either way.  UK popular opinion at all levels is dead against these 2 'men' and will always be so.



This is total bullshit.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Oh get off your high horse.  If you don't believe in innate badness then you have not achieved any qualifications at any level - let alone life



That doesn't even make sense


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

There goes the Voice of the People again. You're right across Urban tonight.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> This is total bullshit.



ok a test?

we both start a facebook group at either ends of our spectrum and judge the winner by the number of signees?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

trashpony said:


> That doesn't even make sense



It certainly does


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

What would that prove?


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What would that prove?



Probably that facebooks full of knobs/idiots.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What would that prove?



a consensus?

who's up for the challenge?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Probably that facebooks full of knobs/idiots.



bet you're on there


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ok a test?
> 
> we both start a facebook group at either ends of our spectrum and judge the winner by the number of signees?



I'm thinking there might be something in the claim that some people are born fucking stupid


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

One thing you can guarantee is that there won't be a consensus. 

But so what if there were? I repeat, what would that prove? 

Thing is, not all opinions are of equal value. Yours, for instance, isn't worth shit because you know nothing about child development.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> I'm thinking there might be something in the claim that some people are born fucking stupid



ha ha challenge me

quite capable of anything in those areas.


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ok a test?
> 
> we both start a facebook group at either ends of our spectrum and judge the winner by the number of signees?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> I'm thinking there might be something in the claim that some people are born fucking stupid


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One thing you can guarantee is that there won't be a consensus.
> 
> But so what if there were? I repeat, what would that prove?
> 
> Thing is, not all opinions are of equal value. Yours, for instance, isn't worth shit because you know nothing about child development.



I agree - those below a certain educational standard are not worth counting.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> a consensus?
> 
> who's up for the challenge?



Well it would prove the consensus on facebook - its not exactly a representative sample though is it?!. And I also think unfortunately the general public is relatively uninformed about these issues, something exacerbated by the tabloid press etc.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> bet you're on there



Nope.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> *I'm guessing *this kind of crime *entails quite a bit *of innate badness





gunneradt said:


> *I reckon* Ian Brady *probably* was - *I reckon *he would be re-wiring resistant.





gunneradt said:


> *well I suspect 99.9% *of parents have a limited experience of having a child murdered, don't you?





gunneradt said:


> *well I'm making a judgment *based on what it might be like to have a child murdered - which is a perfectly sensible thing to think about.





gunneradt said:


> yes, my opinion.  *But i'm pretty certain less than 0.01%* in the UK gives a hoot about these 2 boys.



You're all over the fucking place! 

And this is where you first mentioned facebook which you later denied:



gunneradt said:


> Why do you think there are so many facebook, articles and other groups echoing this sentiment?  And I've yet to see one facebook group defending them.  Of course, someone on here could start one but I suspect it would be deleted.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> bet you're on there



Fuck me, i thought i'd been posting some terrible shit all week.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Well it would prove the consensus on facebook - its not exactly a representative sample. And I also think unfortunately the general public is relatively uninformed about these issues, something excarbated by the tabloid press etc.



Not everyone reads the tabloid press.  And, in any case, the tabloid press is written and staffed by those probably superior to the broadsheet press.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I agree - those below a certain educational standard are not worth counting.


That's not what I said. This is not a vote for who you think should run a government. It would be a vote about a point for which empirical evidence has to be weighed. 

I could start a facebook 'vote' about probability that would be answered wrongly by most people. That would not make the wrong answer right. It would simply prove that most people don't have a good grasp of probability.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You're all over the fucking place!
> 
> And this is where you first mentioned facebook which you later denied:



dont think I was the first to mention it.

Happy to test it though


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ha ha challenge me
> 
> quite capable of anything in those areas.



Challenge you to what?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not what I said. This is not a vote for who you think should run a government. It would be a vote about a point for which empirical evidence has to be weighed.
> 
> I could start a facebook 'vote' about probability that would be answered wrongly by most people. That would not make the wrong answer right. It would simply prove that most people don't have a good grasp of probability.



But wasn't a good deal of this argument about 'popular' or 'general' opinion.  Do you think minorities are generally correct on a lot of issues?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

I struggle to see any argument at all in your posts.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> If they hadn't been rehabilitated, they wouldn't have been considered fit for release.



I'm not so sure about that. 

The alternative to releasing them was to send them to adult prison. There they'd be at a much, much higher risk of being killed than other prisoners are, and even if they managed to stay alive it would be after spending all their time in solitary for their own protection. 

And on release, for a while at least, they'd be under constant observation, again for their own protection. 

So the standards for their 'rehabilitation' might have been a bit lower than normal because keeping them in prison would be a more extreme punishment than usual and releasing them would be lower risk than usual. 

I have no idea whether they were considered rehabilitated or not, but I don't think you can be so confident in your assertion that they MUST have been. 

FWIW, I don't think people are born bad, but people can be born with a temperament that makes them, perhaps, more easily influenced into becoming the sort of person who will do things that society finds bad. 
And it's not always the family who's exerting that influence, either. It's far too easy to immediately assume that violent kids have been abused or mistreated at home, but, through anecodotal experience only, I know that's not always true. 

Then later, people can encounter other influences that change them the other way - and these boys were only ten, an age where personality and behaviour are still very malleable.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

Nah, he's just argumentative, lbj.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Challenge you to what?



Well you were making allegations about intellect


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> But wasn't a good deal of this argument about 'popular' or 'general' opinion.  Do you think minorities are generally correct on a lot of issues?



The point is that there are established facts about child development. Voting on these, as lbj says, doesn't make them any more or less true. It merely establishes peoples beliefs about these facts.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> The point is that there are established facts about child development. Voting on these, as lbj says, doesn't make them any more or less true. It merely establishes peoples beliefs about these facts.



The facts can be presented.

I'm open to that.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ok a test?
> 
> we both start a facebook group at either ends of our spectrum and judge the winner by the number of signees?



What on earth?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Well you were making allegations about intellect



No, I was referring to your claims about people being innately bad etc.... That you may be intelligent doesn't seem to stop you from contradicting yourself at regular intervals and making claims that simply don't stack up then doing exactly what you criticise people when they do it.....


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> *But wasn't a good deal of this argument about 'popular' or 'general' opinion.*  Do you think minorities are generally correct on a lot of issues?



No.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> But wasn't a good deal of this argument about 'popular' or 'general' opinion.  Do you think minorities are generally correct on a lot of issues?



Only a minority ever voted for Thatcher. I assume you think they were correct?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> No, I was referring to your claims about people being innately bad etc.... That you may be intelligent doesn't seem to stop you from contradicting yourself at regular intervals and making claims that simply don't stack up then doing exactly what you criticise people when they do it.....



Do you not believe in innate evil?  Prove to me that it doesn't exist.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> But wasn't a good deal of this argument about 'popular' or 'general' opinion.  Do you think minorities are generally correct on a lot of issues?



Of course they are. A minority of people know how to design and launch rockets. Will a facebook group get you to the fucking moon and back?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> The facts can be presented.
> 
> I'm open to that.



They have been already.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Only a minority ever voted for Thatcher. I assume you think they were correct?



only a minority has ever voted for any govrernment (mostly) in the UK in the last 100 years.  The English has barely ever voted for a Labour Government - if at all.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Do you not believe in innate evil?  Prove to me that it doesn't exist.



You're not getting this evidence thing are you. I don't have to prove something doesn't exist. It is incumbent on you to prove your case, ie that it exists.


----------



## ymu (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Examples please.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> only a minority has ever voted for any govrernment (mostly) in the UK in the last 100 years.  The English has barely ever voted for a Labour Government - if at all.



Any chance you might put the goalposts back where they were there's a good lad.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

Engaging with gunneradt is like trying to pick up diarrhoea with a garden fork.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> The point is that there are established facts about child development. Voting on these, as lbj says, doesn't make them any more or less true. It merely establishes peoples beliefs about these facts.



Er, I'm not sure that there are any _facts_ about child development, apart from biological things like 'babies usually grow milk teeth from around the age of four months,' and even then you have to add a 'usually' and an 'around' because there's so much variation between individuals. 

But obviously gunneradt is talking out of arse anyway. There can't be an equally-sized Facebook group competing with 'lock the bulger killers up forevahhhh!!!!11!' What would that Facebook group even say? 'Free the Bulger 2?' God, anyone on that would be inundated with hate mail. 

You won't find many people sticking their neck out to defend those boys because what they did was horrible, but that doesn't mean that most of the population _hate_ them either. Those who do hate them simply shout a lot louder than those who don't.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Of course they are. A minority of people know how to design and launch rockets. Will a facebook group get you to the fucking moon and back?



That is slightly off the point - the issue is not whether you know how to do something.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 3, 2010)

I saw this thread title, and I thought "loon magnet".

I'd forgotten about gunneradt 

*popcorns*


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> The English has barely ever voted for a Labour Government - if at all.



Well who voted them in then? The French?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Engaging with gunneradt is like trying to pick up diarrhoea with a garden fork.



You lot are determined to 'defend' or sympathise with these 2 because of their upbringing.

Most people in the UK don't believe they deserve any kind of rehabiltation - does that make it Urban 1 UK 0?   I doubt it.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Well who voted them in then? The French?



Good grief  You really didnt go to school did you.  Or were educated post about 1995.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Engaging with gunneradt is like trying to pick up diarrhoea with a garden fork.


Held in the bucket of a malfunctioning JCB.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

There he is again, The Voice of the People. 

Why is it always ignorant fools who lay claim to that title?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Er, I'm not sure that there are any _facts_ about child development, apart from biological things like 'babies usually grow milk teeth from around the age of four months,' and even then you have to add a 'usually' and an 'around' because there's so much variation between individuals.
> 
> But obviously gunneradt is talking out of arse anyway. There can't be an equally-sized Facebook group competing with 'lock the bulger killers up forevahhhh!!!!11!' What would that Facebook group even say? 'Free the Bulger 2?' God, anyone on that would be inundated with hate mail.
> 
> You won't find many people sticking their neck out to defend those boys because what they did was horrible, but that doesn't mean that most of the population _hate_ them either. Those who do hate them simply shout a lot louder than those who don't.



You know - most just do.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Er, I'm not sure that there are any _facts_ about child development, apart from biological things like 'babies usually grow milk teeth from around the age of four months,' and even then you have to add a 'usually' and an 'around' because there's so much variation between individuals.



http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/0261-510X

Only one of many peer reviewed scientific journals of child development. Its a massive area - really interesting too. Also see attachment theory, amazing stuff. 

But agreed, he/she is talking outside of their arse.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There he is again, The Voice of the People.
> 
> Why is it always ignorant fools who lay claim to that title?



Because that's what makes them so representative of The People


----------



## trashpony (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Engaging with gunneradt is like trying to pick up diarrhoea with a garden fork.





existentialist said:


> Held in the bucket of a malfunctioning JCB.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

scifisam said:


> *Er, I'm not sure that there are any facts about child development*, apart from biological things like 'babies usually grow milk teeth from around the age of four months,' and even then you have to add a 'usually' and an 'around' because there's so much variation between individuals.
> 
> But obviously gunneradt is talking out of arse anyway. There can't be an equally-sized Facebook group competing with 'lock the bulger killers up forevahhhh!!!!11!' What would that Facebook group even say? 'Free the Bulger 2?' God, anyone on that would be inundated with hate mail.
> 
> You won't find many people sticking their neck out to defend those boys because what they did was horrible, but that doesn't mean that most of the population _hate_ them either. Those who do hate them simply shout a lot louder than those who don't.



There are some quite well established facts around attachment and brain development,


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> That is slightly off the point - the issue is not whether you know how to do something.



You are pushing the notion that the majority must be the correct opinion. I'm saying that the correct opinion is the one held by the people with the most facts. So my point stands.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> *You lot are determined to 'defend' or sympathise with these 2 because of their upbringing.*
> 
> Most people in the UK don't believe they deserve any kind of rehabiltation - does that make it Urban 1 UK 0?   I doubt it.



straw man much?


----------



## little_legs (Mar 3, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Conditions of life licences are not as trivial as this. You are confusing them with bail conditions which frequently have a signing condition.
> 
> There may well be conditions such as compliance with probation or whatever is considered necessary to maintain their safe condition, and that broad condition may include stuff like keeping appointments ... but the aim of the conditions is to ensure that someone who is basically considered to be becoming a danger to the public again can be recalled to custody if they do not cooperate with efforts to keep them safe.
> 
> Recall is NOT done lightly and a single instance of failing to keep an appointment or something would not be sufficient to result in recall unless there were very exceptional circumstances surrounding it.  Usually there will be a string of breaches dealt with by the probation service, etc. by bollockings and warnings before they conclude that recall is the only option.



Well, judging by this reply the poor chap is screwed 

can you answer this: suppose this lad is released in the next few days. is he going to get a new identity? i am guessing he is currently being detained under the name/surname he got after the 1st crime?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You are pushing the notion that the majority must be the correct opinion. I'm saying that the correct opinion is the one held by the people with the most facts. So my point stands.



At what percentage would you say numbers begin to tell?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> You lot are determined to 'defend' or sympathise with these 2 because of their upbringing.



There you go again, making it all up. What they did was fucking horrific. That there might be some reason for them getting to that position is not defending them or sympathising with them. But, as has been the case all along,. you haven't got the wit to understand that simple reality. And yet you continue to keep going making it up and making factually incorrect claims about people on here.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Good grief  You really didnt go to school did you.  Or were educated post about 1995.



whooooosh.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> You know - most just do.



Do what? The Time Warp?



CJohn said:


> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/0261-510X
> 
> Only one of many peer reviewed scientific journals of child development. Its a massive area. But agreed, he/she is talking outside of their arse.



But that's not 'facts.' They're theories. I'm not being pedantic here - it is an important difference. Facts can't change, theories can; if anyone reckons that what we currently know about brain development and attachment is never going to change, then, well, they're talking out of their arse as much as gunneradt.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Do what? The Time Warp?
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not 'facts.' They're theories. I'm not being pedantic here - it is an important difference. Facts can't change, theories can; if anyone reckons that what we currently know about brain development and attachment is never going to change, then, well, they're talking out of their arse as much as gunneradt.



Science works on establishing known facts, but these are subject to change.  Facts are not immutable, they are about our best knowledge at a particular time.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Do what? The Time Warp?
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not 'facts.' They're theories. I'm not being pedantic here - it is an important difference. Facts can't change, theories can; if anyone reckons that what we currently know about brain development and attachment is never going to change, then, well, they're talking out of their arse as much as gunneradt.



Well of course its not never going to change. Much like most areas of scientific investiagtion. But there is a well established knowledge base on child development. For instance, attachment theory is a theory, but it's supported by facts and the theory has evolved in the context of these facts / findings.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

By the way - I have a lot of friends who are journalists and who will often say things that can't be published.  If I find out what the breach is you'll be the first to know.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> *By the way - I have a lot of friends* who are journalists and who will often say things that can't be published.  If I find out what the breach is you'll be the first to know.



I doubt it.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> By the way - I have a lot of friends who are journalists and who will often say things that can't be published.  If I find out what the breach is you'll be the first to know.



I'd run that past editor first - I know he's not particularly keen on finding himself in questionable areas of legality...


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> By the way - I have a lot of friends who are journalists and who will often say things that can't be published.  If I find out what the breach is you'll be the first to know.



Bless. Is this an olive branch?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I'd run that past editor first - I know he's not particularly keen on finding himself in questionable areas of legality...



ha ha


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Bless. Is this an olive branch?



not at all

just like knowing what's happened.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> At what percentage would you say numbers begin to tell?



numbers are irrelevent.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Science works on establishing known facts, but these are subject to change.  Facts are not immutable, they are about our best knowledge at a particular time.



I think you are using a far different definition of 'fact' than I am, then.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Well of course its not never going to change. Much like most areas of scientific investiagtion. But there is a well established knowledge base on child development. For instance, attachment theory is a theory, but it's supported by facts and the theory has evolved in the context of these facts / findings.



Yes, it's a theory supported by evidence. That means it is a awful lot more credible than knee-jerk prejudices and suppositions. It still doesn't make it a fact.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

You have to distinguish facts from theories. 

eg

Fact: 

Most people in jail in Britain are barely literate.

Theories: 

1. Those who have been failed by the education system are more likely to commit crime.

2. Those who are born criminal generally find it difficult to learn how to read.


These two theories can then be tested to see which holds up as an explanation of the fact by examining other areas, since both theories predict that other facts will be the case. A theory can then fail this test and in effect be disproved. On the other hand, it is impossible to conclusively prove a theory to be true – you can only say that the evidence is strongly in favour of the proposition that it is true. 

I'm guessing gunneradt is not overly familiar with this kind of reasoning.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have to distinguish facts from theories.
> 
> eg
> 
> ...



What does born 'criminal' mean?  Shoplifting at 6 months?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> numbers are irrelevent.



Not completely

1 out of 100,000 is not often right


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

scifisam said:


> I think you are using a far different definition of 'fact' than I am, then.



Yeah I probably meant theories.  However, in science, very few actual facts are known.  We have observations but need theory to make sense of them.  Facts without theory are pretty useless.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have to distinguish facts from theories.
> 
> eg
> 
> ...



Yup, that's the definition I'd use.



Blagsta said:


> Yeah I probably meant theories. However, in science, very few actual facts are known. We have observations but need theory to make sense of them. Facts without theory are pretty useless.



Oh, totally. It's just that I have encountered some childcare professionals who do act like theories are actually facts; they end up being resistant to change and far too quick to judge. I've encountered looks of total disbelief and repeated, incredulous qestioning when I've told psychologists and so on that my daughter was an early talker (I even have records of it) and that she was socialised from a very young age via mother and toddler groups and lots of visits with friends. She's autistic, you see, so those things _can't_ be true. Oh, and one psychologist said that my daughter must have a problem with men (she doesn't) because I'm a lesbian. Aaargh. 

Nothing wrong with calling something 'a theory strongly backed up by evidence.' After all, so's gravity. 

This is rather a tangent, but I guess it makes a change from trollbaiting.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> What does born 'criminal' mean?  Shoplifting at 6 months?



You tell us, it's your view.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> What does born 'criminal' mean?


What does 'born bad' mean?


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Yes, it's a theory supported by evidence. That means it is a awful lot more credible than knee-jerk prejudices and suppositions. It still doesn't make it a fact.



So what is the standard of evidence by which you are happy to grant something the status of a fact? And what things are you happy to credit as being established as facts? I'm sure you can't actually be arsed answering this; we can have a boring discussion about the philosophy of science some other time. What I mainly am trying to say is that there is a lot of very interesting and valuable studies into early childhood development that I would encourage anyone to read.

e2a: for me a fact is a propositon that is supported by an accumulation evidence.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Not completely
> 
> 1 out of 100,000 is not often right



Einstein was.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Einstein was.



about what?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You tell us, it's your view.



No, I said that some are born with an innate badness that may develop at any age regardless of upbringing.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> So what is the standard of evidence by which you are happy to grant something the status of a fact? And what things are you happy to credit as being established as facts? I'm sure you can't actually be arsed answering this; we can have a boring discussion about the philosophy of science some other time. What I mainly am trying to say is that there is a lot of very interesting and valuable studies into early childhood development that I would encourage anyone to read.
> 
> e2a: for me a fact is a propositon that is supported by an accumulation evidence.



Something doesn't change from theory to fact just because it has more evidence. It becomes a theory backed up by lots of evidence. 

I know there are lots of interesting and valuable studies into child development. I've read a lot of them too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> No, I said that some are born with an innate badness that may develop at any age regardless of upbringing.


0/10

You simply can't be that thick.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> No, I said that some are born with an innate badness that may develop at any age regardless of upbringing.



Yes but how do you define badness. What is it? And how might you then go about teasing out all the different influences upon this? 

If you can first define what you actually mean by badness, then show some evidence supporting your proposition that this is innate, we might be able to begin to have something of a logic or sensible conversation. But until then this isn't going anywhere is it?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 0/10
> 
> You simply can't be that thick.



I suspect those are your qualifications


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Yes but how do you define badness. What is it? And how might you then go about teasing out all the different influences upon this?
> 
> If you can first define what you actually mean by badness, then show some evidence supporting your proposition that this is innate, we might be able to begin to have something of a logic or sensible conversation. But until then this isn't going anywhere is it?



well I think badness can be defined as torturing and murdering a 3 year old at 10 years old with no practical tutoring - or do you think that it is/was a succession of circumstantial events


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt's theory proved


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> gunneradt's theory proved



Intereresting point

I had a friend at university who did his final thesis on what personality traits you could define from a face.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

You know that cow&gate follow-on milk advert that says 'do I look like my tummy's unhappy?' The baby at the end of that is _definitely_ pure evil.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> well I think badness can be defined as torturing and murdering a 3 year old at 10 years old with no practical tutoring - or do you think that it is/was a succession of circumstantial events



They had plenty of practical tutoring from violent dysfunctional families. That's the point that's being made.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> about what?



There's a few good quotes by him actually but this one's for you:

_"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."_

But what I had in mind was this:

_"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." _

And his theory worked.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Something doesn't change from theory to fact just because it has more evidence. It becomes a theory backed up by lots of evidence.



Yes ok, but then all we ever have in life are theories. I am happy to use the word 'fact' without having to first pre-establish that what I mean is 'something that I believe to be the case based on the acculation of evidence supporting it, but also in the knowledge that I can never have 100% proof that it is absolutely most definitely the case and there can be no more argument about it' every time I use it. Surely thats already built in.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> They had plenty of practical tutoring from violent dysfunctional families. That's the point that's being made.



From what I've read about these boys, that is not true for both of them. Course, that doesn't mean they were born bad, either. There are lots of influences exerted on kids - including the behaviour of other kids, of course, though that tends to get ignored.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Intereresting point
> 
> I had a friend at university who did his final thesis on what personality traits you could define from a face.


 A bit like phrenology, eh? That was discredited about a century or so ago.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> They had plenty of practical tutoring from violent dysfunctional families. That's the point that's being made.



I'm sorry but there many dysfunctional families - they do not teach you to kill.  Unless you are given specific lessons.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> well I think badness can be defined as torturing and murdering a 3 year old at 10 years old



Ok, so lets agree that that act is evil. Can you now please point me towards the evidence that supports your claim that doing this is innate?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> A bit like phrenology, eh? That was discredited about a century or so ago.



Well this was 1986


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Yes ok, but then all we ever have in life are theories. I am happy to use the word 'fact' without having to first pre-establish that what I mean is 'something that I believe to be the case based on the acculation of evidence supporting it, but also in the knowledge that I can never have 100% proof that it is absolutely most definitely the case and there can be no more argument about it' every time I use it. Surely thats already built in.



No. Not when it comes to nebulous, highly variable things like child development. In that area, it is dangerous to call things facts when they are most certainly not.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Ok, so lets agree that that act is evil. Can you now please point me towards the evidence that supports your claim that doing this is innate?



I have never said that an act is innate

What I have said is that badness can be innate - regardless of upbringing


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> well I think badness can be defined as torturing and murdering a 3 year old at 10 years old with no practical tutoring



'with on practical tutoring' is a silly phrase.

But in any case, your reasoning is entirely circular. They are bad because they did this terrible thing, and they did this terrible thing because they are bad. Doesn't work, I'm afraid.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

scifisam said:


> No. Not when it comes to nebulous, highly variable things like child development. In that area, it is dangerous to call things facts when they are most certainly not.



So there's a different standard of evidence used for the study of child development as opposed to an object of study in any other area? 


Having said that I think empirical evidence can only get us so far when it comes to the study of human development, but thats a side issue.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'with on practical tutoring' is a silly phrase.
> 
> But in any case, your reasoning is entirely circular. They are bad because they did this terrible thing, and they did this terrible thing because they are bad. Doesn't work, I'm afraid.



I didn't say they are bad because they did this terrible thing.  I said they can be bad innately - which I believe can be true.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I have never said that an act is innate
> 
> What I have said is that badness can be innate - regardless of upbringing



Yes. And i have now asked you to point me towards the evidence that supports this claim that it is innate. I.e. not a hypthetical facebook pole.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I didn't say they are bad because they did this terrible thing.  I said they can be bad innately - which I believe can be true.


But your evidence for them being bad innately is that they did this terrible thing, is it not, or did you always know?

You appear to be squirming a bit here – 'can be bad innately' now. What happened to your 'let's have a poll and prove it bravura'?


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> So there's a different standard of evidence used for the study of child development as opposed to an object of study in any other area?
> 
> 
> Having said that I think empirical evidence can only get us so far when it comes to the study of human development, but thats a side issue.



No. If you call something a fact in other areas, when really it's a theory, it doesn't really matter that much (depending on the area you're talking about). If you call it a fact in child development then it matters a lot more. 



gunneradt said:


> I didn't say they are bad because they did this terrible thing.  I said they can be bad innately - which I believe can be true.



But the only reason you believe they are innately bad is because of this one act.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Yes. And i have now asked you to point me towards the evidence that supports this claim that it is innate. I.e. not a hypthetical facebook pole.



What Ive said is that it can be innate

When I say innate what Im really saying is incurable to the point that re-offence is likely - as with some paedophiles who re-offend time after time.

I believe that the reason that these boys were released is largely down to their age.  If the re-offence proves to be serious there will be a lot of yellow faces in various quarters here.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Yes. And i have now asked you to point me towards the evidence that supports this claim that it is innate. I.e. not a hypthetical facebook pole.



what have the poles done?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

scifisam said:


> No. If you call something a fact in other areas, when really it's a theory, it doesn't really matter that much (depending on the area you're talking about). If you call it a fact in child development then it matters a lot more.
> 
> 
> 
> But the only reason you believe they are innately bad is because of this one act.



are we not judged by our acts?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But your evidence for them being bad innately is that they did this terrible thing, is it not, or did you always know?
> 
> You appear to be squirming a bit here – 'can be bad innately' now. What happened to your 'let's have a poll and prove it bravura'?



Very happy to do the poll


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

from Voice of the People to master criminologist. 

BTW, it would help if you used words with the meanings others are likely to attach to them. Discussion is rather difficult otherwise.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

scifisam said:


> No. If you call something a fact in other areas, when really it's a theory, it doesn't really matter that much (depending on the area you're talking about). If you call it a fact in child development then it matters a lot more.



To be fair I entirely accept that we need to be careful of any loon running arounding spouting off on the 'facts of childhood'. So I'm sure we're entirely agreed there. I'm really just defending the idea that we can study childhood in a variety of ways, and that some of these include scientific principals that let us deduce certain things about child development. But, of course, as you say it is important, espeically when it comes to children, that this is always proposed in a tentative and curious manner. Having said that, I do feel confident to say that the need to attach to a caregiver is one of the facts of human development, and that this is as important as any other need.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> When I say innate what Im really saying is incurable to the point that re-offence is likely - as with some paedophiles who re-offend time after time.



But you see now you've changed the goal posts. Now you're saying innate means incurable, which is something completely different.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

Extraordinary to link the act of these boys to paedophilia, really. What are the useful connections between the two?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

Does he mean the repeated sexual abuse of Thompson?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Extraordinary to link the act of these boys to paedophilia, really. What are the useful connections between the two?



I'm not sure given what actually happened


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Does he mean the repeated sexual abuse of Thompson?



err no.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> What Ive said is that it can be innate



They've been free for 9 years without further incident apart from this recent event for one of them of which we don't know the details of yet.

So hardly innate, then? If they are incurably evil then why aren't they continuing to murder people?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> But you see now you've changed the goal posts. Now you're saying innate means incurable, which is something completely different.



I'm linking innateness to incurability which, of course, would be so.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I'm linking innateness to incurability which, of course, would be so.



No it wouldn't, regardless of the fact that you've not provided any evidence (or suggestion) of innateness anyway.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> They've been free for 9 years without further incident apart from this recent event for one of them of which we don't know the details of yet.
> 
> So hardly innate, then? If they are incurably evil then why aren't they continuing to murder people?



You have no idea what has happened - nor have I.  I'll certainly try to find out though.  But, given that re-committal is unlikely to have been taken lightly, it could have been a succession of events.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I'm linking innateness to incurability which, of course, would be so.



Nope. Innate means you're born with it. I was born with eczema. I don't have it now. Tada! Innate does not equal incurable, or vice versa.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 3, 2010)

No, just one incident gets you back inside. You can be sure it's not a succession.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> No it wouldn't, regardless of the fact that you've not provided any evidence (or suggestion) of innateness anyway.



Can you cure paedophiles then?  Do you believe they are taught that?  Or have a pre-disposition towards it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> You have no idea what has happened - nor have I.  I'll certainly try to find out though.  But, given that re-committal is unlikely to have been taken lightly, it could have been a succession of events.



Well it's all speculation at this point isn't it?

But incurably evil means they ought to be out there commiting heinous acts on a weekly basis. They aren't and your 'theory' holds no water.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Can you cure paedophiles then?  Do you believe they are taught that?  Or have a pre-disposition towards it.



What are you talking about and why?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Nope. Innate means you're born with it. I was born with eczema. I don't have it now. Tada! Innate does not equal incurable, or vice versa.



Try curing cerebral palsy when you're born with it.

A skin disease is not an innate tendency


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> What are you talking about and why?



I think you fully understand.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

You do realise that trolling like this just makes you look like a nob, whether people believe you think it or not, don't you?


----------



## CJohn (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Try curing cerebral palsy when you're born with it.



Thats entirely different though, and it would be wrong to imply that someone with cerebal palsy should be able to cure it. Do you have it?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You do realise that trolling like this just makes you look like a nob, whether people believe you think it or not, don't you?



Perfectly willing to take up any poll challenge.

Any medium.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I think you fully understand.





Oh dear, you've lost a life.

I don't think tbh you should be trolling anyway.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Try curing cerebral palsy when you're born with it.
> 
> A skin disease is not an innate tendency



Of course not everything you're born with is curable, but plenty of things are. Therefore innate definitely doesn't mean the same as incurable. And, er, yeah, a skin disease you're born with is innate. Are you even sure what 'innate' means?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Thats entirely different though, and it would be wrong to imply that someone with cerebal palsy should be able to cure it.



I was responding to the miraculous curing of innate eczema


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Of course not everything you're born with is curable, but plenty of things are. Therefore innate definitely doesn't mean the same as incurable. And, er, yeah, a skin disease you're born with is innate. Are you even sure what 'innate' means?



Pretty certain that I do.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I was responding to the miraculous curing of innate eczema



It's not miraculous at all. 

My sister was also born with very short sight. Now, thanks to laser surgery, she has perfect sight. No miracles involved. But another example of innate not equalling incurable.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Perfectly willing to take up any poll challenge.
> 
> Any medium.


A poll asking whether or not people think you're a nob?

On here?

You'd lose, you know.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A poll asking whether or not people think you're a nob?
> 
> On here?
> 
> You'd lose, you know.



You can take it as extremely as you like with these 2?

any public medium!!

"let them rot or do everything to rehabilitate the poor lambs?"

who d'ya reckon would win eh?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2010)

I don't care.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 3, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't care.



no problem


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 4, 2010)

Some interesting stuff on the internet on a quick search.  Apparently, Venables was to marry soon to an unsuspecting person (woman) - I've no idea if that would be illegal or breach conditions of his release - can't imagine his bride to be being 'over the moon' about blindly marrying a child murderer.

There was a story on the Telegraph but it's been removed


----------



## toggle (Mar 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep, he was originally at Parkhurst, but was transferred to (IIRC) Broadmoor after being judged to be schizophrenic.



That diagnosis seems to be quite controversial.


----------



## toggle (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> You lot are determined to 'defend' or sympathise with these 2 because of their upbringing.
> 
> Most people in the UK don't believe they deserve any kind of rehabiltation - does that make it Urban 1 UK 0?   I doubt it.



I don't give a fuck what the rest of the UK thinks, (when did they appoint you to speak for them anyway?)

I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind, and not presuming to speak for anyone else.

If I did choose to speak for other people, I would state that 99.9% of the people who have ever had anything to do with you think you're an arse.


----------



## toggle (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Good grief  You really didnt go to school did you.  Or were educated post about 1995.



If we are commenting on people's schooling, that isn't how you spell didn't.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 4, 2010)

toggle said:


> I don't give a fuck what the rest of the UK thinks, (when did they appoint you to speak for them anyway?)
> 
> I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind, and not presuming to speak for anyone else.
> 
> If I did choose to speak for other people, I would state that 99.9% of the people who have ever had anything to do with you think you're an arse.



Well, if you're being pedantic, UK should be in capitals.  

You also can't 'presume' to speak for anyone else.  I assume you mean 'assume'.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 4, 2010)

toggle said:


> If we are commenting on people's schooling, that isn't how you spell didn't.



It is, minus an apostrophe.


----------



## toggle (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Well, if you're being pedantic, UK should be in capitals.
> 
> You also can't 'presume' to speak for anyone else.  I assume you mean 'assume'.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 4, 2010)

toggle said:


>



I was merely highlighting your obvious grammatical inadequacies - not altogether unsurprising


----------



## toggle (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I was merely highlighting your obvious grammatical inadequacies - not altogether unsurprising



The inadequacy is yours. Presume is the correct word to use.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 4, 2010)

toggle said:


> The inadequacy is yours. Presume is the correct word to use.



Another fine product of comprehensive schooling no doubt. Trust me, it isn't.

On another note, a more on topic link

http://www.mirror.co.uk/2010/03/04/...ng-temper-after-jail-release-115875-22083895/


----------



## toggle (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Another fine product of comprehensive schooling no doubt. Trust me, it isn't.



With your superior education, you should have little trouble proving you are correct, even without resorting to facebook.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 4, 2010)

toggle said:


> With your superior education, you should have little trouble proving you are correct, even without resorting to facebook.



I'm off to bed but just read it back to yourself.  That's not what the word 'presume' means.  ttfn


----------



## scifisam (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> It is, minus an apostrophe.



The apostrophe is quite important in that word. FWIW, you also capitalised 'you' when you didn't (see?) need to, and presume is absolutely the correct word. Not like any of this matters in comparison to the content of your posts.


----------



## toggle (Mar 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> The apostrophe is quite important in that word. FWIW, you also capitalised 'you' when you didn't (see?) need to, and presume is absolutely the correct word. Not like any of this matters in comparison to the content of your posts.



If the idiot is going to amuse himself trolling, I reserve the right to amuse myself showing him up as an idiot. Please don't take my new toy away miss.


----------



## ymu (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> You also can't 'presume' to speak for anyone else.  I assume you mean 'assume'.




Epic self-pwnage.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt, do you really not understand what '_presumptuous_' means?

your parents should sue your school and try to get their money back!


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 4, 2010)

Jonti said:


> gunneradt, do you really not understand what '_presumptuous_' means?
> 
> your parents should sue your school and try to get their money back!



I perfectly understand what it means - I was contesting the context in which it was used.

It always amazes me why someone is assumed to be trolling because they adopt views contrary to the 'Urban' mass - which is totally at odds witrh sentiments that will fill the airwaves today - make no mistake about that.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I perfectly understand what it means - I was contesting the context in which it was used.
> 
> It always amazes me why someone is assumed to be trolling because they adopt views contrary to the 'Urban' mass - which is totally at odds witrh sentiments that will fill the airwaves today - make no mistake about that.


It's not that "they adopt views contrary to the 'Urban' mass".

It's the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, wilfully stupid, ignore-all-the-facts, don't-argue-just-keep-restating-the-same-numbskull-idiocies stuff that tends to arouse a negative reaction.

Can't think why, mind...


----------



## existentialist (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm guessing gunneradt is not overly familiar with reasoning.


Fixed it for you. HTH


----------



## existentialist (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Extraordinary to link the act of these boys to paedophilia, really. What are the useful connections between the two?


Ooh, easy.

Public outrage.

And, er. No, just that.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> You also can't 'presume' to speak for anyone else.  I assume you mean 'assume'.



Dictionary corner: presume - 'to undertake (to do something) without right or permission: to presume to speak for another.'

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## existentialist (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Well, if you're being pedantic, UK should be in capitals.
> 
> You also can't 'presume' to speak for anyone else.  I assume you mean 'assume'.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 4, 2010)

Well it looks like this urchin has had enough chances in life

At what point is the key thrown away?  Or do we continue to pour taxpayers money trying to rehabilitate someone who is last chance saloon? 

A Daily Mail link because I know how much they are enjoyed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Venables-sent-jail-drugs-workplace-brawl.html


----------



## existentialist (Mar 4, 2010)

No doubt gunneradt reckons that if he went out there and asked the Great Unwashed, more people would aver that "assume" was the right word than would argue for "presume", and would therefore be right.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...


----------



## Pingu (Mar 4, 2010)

still going then?

good work


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Well it looks like this urchin has had enough chances in life
> 
> At what point is the key thrown away?  Or do we continue to pour taxpayers' money away, trying to rehabilitate someone who is in the last chance saloon?
> 
> ...



Corrected for you; presentation rather than content...that would be a rather more substantial task.

If you want to try a bit of self improvement (re. the content of your post), then think about what might differentiate a child who kills from an adult in terms of their ability to act responsibly.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> At what point is the key thrown away?  Or do we continue to pour taxpayers money trying to rehabilitate someone who is last chance saloon?
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Venables-sent-jail-drugs-workplace-brawl.html



If anyone's in the last chance saloon it's you, you drink-sodden halfwit.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 4, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> If anyone's in the last chance saloon it's you, you drink-sodden halfwit.



not so sure about that - pretty good chance this guy is going to get outed in the next few days.  It's not even illegal to publish his picture in Scotland, let alone abroad.  Rumour has it that the papers have several pictures.


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Another fine product of comprehensive schooling no doubt. Trust me, it isn't.
> 
> On another note, a more on topic link
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/2010/03/04/...ng-temper-after-jail-release-115875-22083895/



"It was revealed that until last Christmas, Venables was buying one gram of cocaine a week to feed his habit."


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 4, 2010)

.

Ah, that link might help . . . or not . . .


----------



## dylans (Mar 4, 2010)

> “Every prison in the country will be looking round to see whether or not there’s a 27-year-old arrived who looks a little bit like THAT boy.



This is the worst of all worlds really. The announcement that he has been taken into custody combined with a refusal to say why has just caused a tsunami of speculation. It would have been better if they had either. Said nothing at all. Or explained the circumstances of his arrest. 
I wouldn't want to be a young guy in his late 20s entering prison right now.


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Well it looks like this urchin has had enough chances in life
> 
> At what point is the key thrown away?  Or do we continue to pour taxpayers money trying to rehabilitate someone who is last chance saloon?
> 
> ...



You are so ignorant.

You don't know the difference in meaning between innate, congenital and incurable; you try to correct toggle who is using a word absolutely correctly.

You say, effectively, that some children are "born bad" but you don't have any reasoning to support your assertion, so I take this to be instead part of your personal belief system (rather a sad one).

You appear not to know that it will cost more "taxpayers money" to "throw away the key" on this "urchin" than it would to support him back into society and work.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 4, 2010)

So he's 27, was living in a bedsit somewhere up north - Leeds or somewhere I expect, no qualifications, working for minimum wage, presumably no or very few friends - certainly none that go back far, does a bit of coke and likes music. Can't go to Liverpool and various other restrictions.

He's living the sentence every day as far as I can see.


----------



## dylans (Mar 4, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> So he's 27, was living in a bedsit somewhere up north - Leeds or somewhere I expect, no qualifications, working for minimum wage, presumably no or very few friends - certainly none that go back far, does a bit of coke and likes music.



Got into a punch up in a club ..bingo, game over. It's probably something mundane like that


----------



## Geri (Mar 4, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> So he's 27, was living in a bedsit somewhere up north - Leeds or somewhere I expect, no qualifications, working for minimum wage, presumably no or very few friends - certainly none that go back far, does a bit of coke and likes music.



Maybe he posts on here as well.


----------



## treelover (Mar 4, 2010)

> He is also a big music fan who has attended The V Festival, the Leeds Festival and Glastonbury.




You can just hear Jamie's Mother saying 'my son will never do any of these things'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

trashpony said:


> That doesn't even make sense



That's a "you and yer fancy book-larnin', ye know nowt!" type of _schtick_.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ok a test?
> 
> we both start a facebook group at either ends of our spectrum and judge the winner by the number of signees?



What does that prove except that people like to show their opinions on issues?

Does it make people right or wrong? No, it merely shows they have an opinion. It says nothing about the *factual validity* of that opinion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Not everyone reads the tabloid press.  And, in any case, the tabloid press is written and staffed by those probably superior to the broadsheet press.



You've never worked for a national newspaper, have you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> But wasn't a good deal of this argument about 'popular' or 'general' opinion.  Do you think minorities are generally correct on a lot of issues?



No, it was about your assumption that your views were held by a vast majority.

With, of course, nothing to back it up except your belief that you'd win some kind of face-ache poll.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> I'm not so sure about that.
> 
> The alternative to releasing them was to send them to adult prison.


Or to a special hospital. 


> There they'd be at a much, much higher risk of being killed than other prisoners are, and even if they managed to stay alive it would be after spending all their time in solitary for their own protection.


Not necessarily. Inmates can be transferred under false identities. It doesn't happen often (mainly because prison officers have mouths bigger than a female elephants' vagina), but it does happen


> And on release, for a while at least, they'd be under constant observation, again for their own protection.
> 
> So the standards for their 'rehabilitation' might have been a bit lower than normal because keeping them in prison would be a more extreme punishment than usual and releasing them would be lower risk than usual.


Highly unlikely. Release standards aren't slackened even for compassionate cases. Licence conditions are standard. No leeway. You fulfil the qualifying conditions and you're considered for licence. If you don't, you're not considered.


> I have no idea whether they were considered rehabilitated or not, but I don't think you can be so confident in your assertion that they MUST have been.


I worked at Abell House (home of the prisons dept of the Home Office) for several years as a middling civil servant, so I'm fairly confident about procedure and just how wedded to it HM Prison Service is, especially in cases where exceptions generally come back to haunt the bureaucrat who actioned them (and occasionally the minister who made them).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> A bit like phrenology, eh? That was discredited about a century or so ago.



More Cesare Lombroso (who also applied himself to proving that people were born criminal, unsuccessfully) than phrenology. Mad bastard collected a veritable library of photos of criminals, trying to prove that particular facial characteristics "matched" the perpetration of particular crimes.

he was, of course, as wrong as Duncan "Big Wrong" MacWrong of the Dumbarton MacWrongs, and as mad as a tea chest full of frogs.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or to a special hospital.
> 
> Not necessarily. Inmates can be transferred under false identities. It doesn't happen often (mainly because prison officers have mouths bigger than a female elephants' vagina), but it does happen
> 
> ...



Maybe you're right. But there have already been so very many exceptions made in the treatment of these two people, in their convictions, trial style, release of their photos, place of imprisonment, method of release, etc, that I wouldn't assume they were suddenly being treated like regular inmates when it came to release - especially since the release was timed so that they wouldn't have to go to adult hospital. 

FWIW, even under a false name I reckon they'd have lasted about ten minutes in gen pop at a regular prison. All it would take is for one guard who knows the secret to let it slip, or for one prisoner to recognise them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

toggle said:


> That diagnosis seems to be quite controversial.



It was/is. He apparently has "episodes", but opinion has long been divided as to whether they're the fakings of a clever (and Sutcliffe *is* intelligent) man, or genuine schizophrenic episodes. 
There's also a lot of academic fencing about which, if any, personality disorder Sutcliffe has.


----------



## og ogilby (Mar 4, 2010)

On another forum I go on one bloke reckons one of the boys joined the army after he was released.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

The newspaper reports are interesting.
The _Mirror_ talk about "parole conditions" before mentioning, two-thirds of the way down the story, that Venables was released on licence, and mention incidents (possession, violence) that would have led to him being immediately recalled, not detained, cautioned and released. Venables would have been "red flagged" on the computer system. As soon as his name went in, the custody officer would have been alerted and had to start the ball rolling.
Police officers don't have discretion to decide whether a licencee gets to walk away.
If officers exercised such discretion, they acted illegally.

The _Mail_ repeats much of the same, adding that Venables' own police minders were aware of this purported misbehaviour, and didn't have him recalled.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

Why is any of this in the public domain? 

He has a new identity. Leave him alone ffs. Someone has leaked this, and they're a cunt for doing so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Maybe you're right. But there have already been so very many exceptions made in the treatment of these two people, in their convictions, trial style, release of their photos, place of imprisonment, method of release, etc, that I wouldn't assume they were suddenly being treated like regular inmates when it came to release - especially since the release was timed so that they wouldn't have to go to adult hospital.


The majority of the exceptions haven't been in their favour, though.


> FWIW, even under a false name I reckon they'd have lasted about ten minutes in gen pop at a regular prison. All it would take is for one guard who knows the secret to let it slip, or for one prisoner to recognise them.


Hence my comment about the size of mouth of the average prison officer.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Their upbringing has been singled out as a reason/defence for what they did.  It depends how you view that.



Sliding reason and defence together doesn't make them the same thing; trying to understand something is not the same as excusing or defending it. 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why is any of this in the public domain?
> 
> He has a new identity. Leave him alone ffs. Someone has leaked this, and they're a cunt for doing so.



I'd say that it was a combination of malice and arse-covering. Ministers are mostly cowards, who hate the idea of something that happens on their watch coming home to roost (sorry for the mixed metaphors!), so a bit of judicious leaking, especially of information on people who enjoy little public sympathy, does the job nicely.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 4, 2010)

The punishment for these two young men, which they will never be free from, is their own conscience, reliving their actions in their minds eye, from the moment they wake up in the morning to having nightmares about it when they're both asleep. Very sad for all concerned.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Venables would have been "red flagged" on the computer system. As soon as his name went in, the custody officer would have been alerted and had to start the ball rolling.


You have great faith in the infallability of information sharing and the computer systems ... (even before taking into account the changed identity issues which would, no doubt, have resulted in some sort of means of preventing some random cop discovering that they have a Bulger killer standing in front of them ...).

My experience was that it was rare that release / licence conditions actually made it on to the Police National Computer which is the only system routinely used by the police when dealing with stopped / arrested suspects.  It _may_ have improved (I am aware that HMP staff got PNC training and a role in updating records directly a few years back) ... but I wouldn't put a whole load of £££s on it!


----------



## Boppity (Mar 4, 2010)

treelover said:


> You can just hear Jamie's Mother saying 'my son will never do any of these things'



What's your point here?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Sliding reason and defence together doesn't make them the same thing; trying to understand something is not the same as excusing or defending it.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



This has been pointed out to him time and again to no avail Louis.


----------



## Harold Hill (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why is any of this in the public domain?
> 
> He has a new identity. Leave him alone ffs. Someone has leaked this, and they're a cunt for doing so.



Because it's of public interest like it or not.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 4, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> This has been pointed out to him time and again to no avail Louis.



Perhaps we need to "use a bigger hammer"?


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

Harold Hill said:


> Because it's of public interest like it or not.



there is a distinction to be made between _things the public are interested in_ and _things that are in the public interest_.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 4, 2010)

Harold Hill said:


> Because it's of public interest like it or not.


As innit says, being OF public interest is not necessarily the same as being IN the public interest.

The full, scandalous details of a juicy crime of passion murder are OF public interest (just watch the tabloids drooling and pushing the boundaries) but it is not IN the public interest to allow them all to be published immediately, thus preventing a fair trial for the defendant and a possible conviction which will protect the public in the future.

In such a situation it is most definitely IN the public interest to have a process which delivers fair trials to suspects and which is capable of convicting violent offenders.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 4, 2010)

MC5 said:


> The punishment for these two young men, which they will never be free from, is their own conscience...



That presupposes that they have the capability to empathise and feel guilt and remorse. Which isn't necessarily going to be the case. Certainly I would surprised if they didn't have some psychopathic features.


----------



## tombowler (Mar 4, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Well Im equating an understanding of their upbringing as a defence for what they did in some way.
> 
> I also think most children know the difference between right and wrong when it comes to this kind of extreme.  Even a 3 year old would know they shouldn't hurt another person in that way.


 NO



Pingu said:


> had they accidentally killed him then maybe i would be with you on this but they deliberately took him - even a 10 yr old knows that takng a 2 yr old in that way is wrong (the degree of wrong i will grant you can be debated but its still wrong). they then, over a period of time kicked, punched and tortured him before finalyy killing him and then dumping his body on a railway line
> 
> so yeah i reckon your average 10 yr old will know thats a wrong thing to do.
> 
> if they were THAT messed up then they should have been put into psych care - not that that would have rehabilitated them but if they really were that fucked up...


 NO



gunneradt said:


> Normalise? No.
> 
> Be more likely to be violent, yes.
> 
> However, being violent and torturing aomeone are completely different.


 NO

Face it you are wrong no if no buts your are W O R N G. 
bring a child up exposed to daily beatings and torture, expose it to this violence as normal the child will not know what is right and wrong in the same way as you or i do. they were kids failed by the system abused buy their families and each other it seams.

 Y O U ARE WRONG

work with children who have been exposed to this toxic home life study this ongoing problem in our society grow beyond your blinkered short sighted myopic view and in three or four years time come back here and tell me were they evil? should they have been killed? 

for the present you have no frame of reference and can not comprehend what these two boys had been through and how it has effected them and what they saw as normal reasonable and right or wrong. We are taught right from wrong we do not know it instinctively from birth. 

now go and grow beyond what you are now and incrfease your understanding of the real world.


----------



## dylans (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why is any of this in the public domain?
> 
> He has a new identity. Leave him alone ffs. Someone has leaked this, and they're a cunt for doing so.



This sums up my feelings on this in a nutshell.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 4, 2010)

CJohn said:


> That presupposes that they have the capability to empathise and feel guilt and remorse. Which isn't necessarily going to be the case. Certainly I would surprised if they didn't have some psychopathic features.



Diagnosis-by-internet. Never ends well...


----------



## CJohn (Mar 4, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Diagnosis-by-internet. Never ends well...



Obviously I'm speculating, but murdering another child is probably a fairly indicative risk factor for the likely diagnosis of psychopathy as an adult.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 4, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Obviously I'm speculating, but murdering another child is probably a fairly indicative risk factor for the likely diagnosis of psychopathy as an adult.


I'd be very interested to see the research you base that conclusion on...?


----------



## CJohn (Mar 4, 2010)

Well research shows that adolescent psychopathy predicts adult psychopathy and future anti-social behaviour. And I suppose that I am presuming that killing a child intentionally is as close to a definition of psychopathy is adolescence as we can get. Of course its not all set in stone, thankfully.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

These weren't adolescents. They were 10-year-old children.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> These weren't adolescents. They were 10-year-old children.



I know. But I feel its being entirely grounded to speculate that they might have some psychopathic traits. Is this a controversial statement? I'd like to hope this wasn't the case, that they don't have these characteristics, but wouldnt be surprised if they did.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The full, scandalous details of a juicy crime of passion murder are OF public interest [...] but it is not IN the public interest to allow them all to be published immediately, thus preventing a fair trial for the defendant and a possible conviction which will protect the public in the future.


Would it prevent a fair trial? What's the evidence for this received wisdom?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 4, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Well research shows that adolescent psychopathy predicts adult psychopathy and future anti-social behaviour. And I suppose that I am presuming that killing a child intentionally is as close to a definition of psychopathy is adolescence as we can get. Of course its not all set in stone, thankfully.


Can you point me to some of this research?

Because I'm not aware of any that conclusively identifies a correlation like the one you're describing, and - as someone has already said - adolescent psychiatry is rather a different kettle of fish than that of ten year olds.

I just think we're in danger of confusing speculation and surmise with fact, here.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Bippitybop said:


> What's your point here?





Surely the point is that the Bulger boy can never do anything that his killers are (or were until recently in this case) free to do because he isn't around to do anything anymore. His parents, who have never had the chance to see their child grow up, have the heaviest sentence of all to deal with.

Yes, the relatively deprived backgrounds of the two killers are a factor in the crime. I know from personal experience that bad social conditions enure that bad things will happen more frequently than they happen in better circumstances. That does not mean, however, that those who gratuitously commit murder and other serious crimes should not be punished severely, as the overwhelming majority living in bad social conditions yet restraining themselves from criminal acts will readily tell anybody. 

Both the Bulger killers should still be inside.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

Can you explain your second log-in, Ms Fish?


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Can you explain your second log-in, Ms Fish?





What do you mean?


----------



## CJohn (Mar 4, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Can you point me to some of this research?



Well if you have access to a online database for medline or psych info you could search for 'psychopathy' and 'risk factors', or something. Also, I'm not saying anything conclusive here. 

For claritys sake, I am saying that the very developmental deficits, occuring secondary to childhood trauma etc, that might have played a role in the initial offence are quite possibly still in evidence. For instance the ability to empathise is thought to be a developmental acheivement acquired through early attachment processes. And when this doesn't develop it is likely to persist into adulthood. As I don't share some other peoples confidence in our juvenile justice system to 'rehabilitative' children with these problems, I am pessimistically assuming that it is likely that they may still have some of these developmental deficits. Hence my comment that I think we are being optimistic to presume that either of these boys is struggling with the guilt of their crime.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

They were TEN YEARS OLD. They were children. Not adults. Not even adolescents. Young children, with young children's brains, which had at least in one case never had the chance to develop properly.

Go and find an abused ten-year-old and ask them how they would assess their capabilities to restrain themselves from criminal acts. They won't even understand your question.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

Feigned ignorance Ms Fish. There are two log-ins from the your IP address.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Feigned ignorance Ms Fish. There are two log-ins from the your IP address.




Yes, but from two different people using the same computer, one of whom seldom posts anymore. 

I didn't realise that this wasn't allowed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

CJohn, I don't doubt that the system did a poor job of helping them develop. What children need most is love, and that is the one thing the state cannot give.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Yes, but from two different people using the same computer, one of whom seldom posts anymore.
> 
> I didn't realise that this wasn't allowed.




Not allowed if it's the same person.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> CJohn, I don't doubt that the system did a poor job of helping them develop. What children need most is love, and that is the one thing the state cannot give.



Agreed. I'm not quite getting your apparent irritation at what I am saying though.


----------



## tombowler (Mar 4, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Would it prevent a fair trial? What's the evidence for this received wisdom?



sorry i find that i agree with db here if all the salacious details were out there it would be impossible to find a jury who did not already have an opinion as to the accused guilt or not there fore not giving a fair trial, I am pretty sure there are many cases in law to prove this point hence the often used reporting bans till after the trial, i don't think the judiciary  would just do/say this on a whim.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They were TEN YEARS OLD. They were children. Not adults. Not even adolescents. Young children, with young children's brains, which had at least in one case never had the chance to develop properly.
> 
> Go and find an abused ten-year-old and ask them how they would assess their capabilities to restrain themselves from criminal acts. They won't even understand your question.






I would have known when I was ten years old that tying a toddler to railway lines and battering him with a lump of metal was wrong. So would most of my fellow ten year olds.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

I'm not irritated, but you have to be careful about jumping to conclusions, is all. The fact that they were so young could be a positive in terms of their future development – more plastic brains and more scope for change.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Not allowed if it's the same person.





If you've a problem with it then fair enough. But I'm not here for trolling or any other type of cyber mischief. 

It's your forum, however.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I would have known when I was ten years old that tying a toddler to railway lines and battering him with a lump of metal was wrong. So would most of my fellow ten year olds.


Were you physically and sexually abused as a young child? Do you know the kind of damage that can do to a child's ability to learn? The child goes into a permanent state of high alert in such circumstances, and nobody can learn in such a state, so they don't have the chance to learn all kinds of things.

Go and read a book instead of posting this ignorant crap on here.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

I shall reserve judgment for now because my supper's ready, Ms Fish.....


----------



## CJohn (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not irritated, but you have to be careful about jumping to conclusions, is all. The fact that they were so young could be a positive in terms of their future development – more plastic brains and more scope for change.



We of course have to be careful. And I would like to think that an appropriate psychosocial intervention could have a positive effect on their longer term outcomes. What I am saying is that I thinks its probably unlikely that they ever got this.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Were you physically and sexually abused as a young child? Do you know the kind of damage that can do to a child's ability to learn? The child goes into a permanent state of high alert in such circumstances, and nobody can learn in such a state, so they don't have the chance to learn all kinds of things.
> 
> Go and read a book instead of posting this ignorant crap on here.





None of this is any excuse for cold blooded murder, no matter how many books might claim that it is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

CJohn said:


> What I am saying is that I thinks its probably unlikely that they ever got this.


Unfortunately you are probably right, but in truth I don't really know what help they received. They may have been lucky and been put in the care of someone who, well, cared.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> None of this is any excuse for cold blooded murder, no matter how many books might claim that it is.



Who is excusing it?


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I would have known when I was ten years old that tying a toddler to railway lines and battering him with a lump of metal was wrong. So would most of my fellow ten year olds.



OK, let's take it as a given that most ten year olds would know this was wrong.  As we weren't present at the trial we can only speculate as to whether these two particular ten year olds knew this (see many posts passim, especially Blagsta's re the effects of childhood abuse on the developing brain).

However, the point is that you cannot judge two adults by the actions of their ten year old selves.  I did things when I was ten which I vaguely understood to be wrong, and still did anyway because I failed to really understand their impact on other people (tbf this also applies to things I did in my early twenties ).  

People have a fundamental right to freedom and you can only take that away with reason.  These two kids were already locked up for half of their childhoods - that's punishment enough.  The only reason to keep them locked up would be if they were a continued risk to the public and we simply don't know that that's the case.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why is any of this in the public domain?
> 
> He has a new identity. Leave him alone ffs. Someone has leaked this, and they're a cunt for doing so.





dylans said:


> This sums up my feelings on this in a nutshell.



+1

I don't know why the press insist that they have a 'right' to get any gory details. All this attention is actually compromising his rehabilitation, his new identity and ultimately his life.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Who is excusing it?





Nobody is excusing it in so many words. Maybe apologising for it would be a better term.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> +1
> 
> I don't know why the press insist that they have a 'right' to get any gory details. All this attention is actually compromising his rehabilitation, his new identity and ultimately his life.





Who is rehabilitating the Bulger child's parents?


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Who is rehabilitating the Bulger child's parents?



That's totally irrelevant, tbh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> None of this is any excuse for cold blooded murder, no matter how many books might claim that it is.


Am I even looking to make excuses? No. Would I like to understand? Yes.

There is a difference. 

The next time you pass a junior school, glance over at the playground. They were children like them, except abused and neglected. I have huge pity for the poor parents of the child who was killed, but I also have pity for the poor wretches who killed him.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

innit said:


> OK, let's take it as a given that most ten year olds would know this was wrong.  As we weren't present at the trial we can only speculate as to whether these two particular ten year olds knew this (see many posts passim, especially Blagsta's re the effects of childhood abuse on the developing brain).
> 
> However, the point is that you cannot judge two adults by the actions of their ten year old selves.  I did things when I was ten which I vaguely understood to be wrong, and still did anyway because I failed to really understand their impact on other people (tbf this also applies to things I did in my early twenties ).
> 
> People have a fundamental right to freedom and you can only take that away with reason.  These two kids were already locked up for half of their childhoods - that's punishment enough.  The only reason to keep them locked up would be if they were a continued risk to the public and we simply don't know that that's the case.





When you're ten years old you know very well that killing is wrong, no matter what kind of background you come from. So, too, did you, I'd bet. It's more than a vague understanding.

All this is subjective anyway. My sympathies are with the victims not the killers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Who is rehabilitating the Bulger child's parents?


Who are you to presume to speak for them? 

You have no idea what they think about this.


----------



## tombowler (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> None of this is any excuse for cold blooded murder, no matter how many books might claim that it is.



but if you do not know right from wrong ... ( don't mean you personally here but it may seem you don't grasp all the forum rules) because you were not taught this, as we do not instinctively know this from birth....... i repeat myself


----------



## CJohn (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Unfortunately you are probably right, but in truth I don't really know what help they received. They may have been lucky and been put in the care of someone who, well, cared.



I don't know, I fear that the level of deprivation that was incurred to create the very conditions through which they could commit the original offence would be such that even in a secure loving enviroment it might be extremely difficult to undo the effects of this early damage. I just don't feel I could subsribe to the wishful thinking that they might not still carry the effects of their early childhood abuse / trauma. We know that this stuff gets hardwired into the brain, that it effects brain structure and function, and unfortunately after a critical time period it is very hard to undo this. Certainly I am all for any attempts to help these two lads, to have them in the community and getting all the support they need - I am just being cautious about being too optimisitc about the gains they might make.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> When you're ten years old you know very well that killing is wrong, *no matter what kind of background you come from*.


Not true.

Are you gunneradt's stand-in?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Who is rehabilitating the Bulger child's parents?



I didn't realise they were considered a danger to society. Does the press know about this?


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> When you're ten years old you know very well that killing is wrong, no matter what kind of background you come from. So, too, did you, I'd bet. It's more than a vague understanding.
> 
> All this is subjective anyway. My sympathies are with the victims not the killers.



I suspect I have more experience of traumatised kids than you.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> My sympathies are with the victims not the killers.



So Baby P isn't a victim?


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Am I even looking to make excuses? No. Would I like to understand? Yes.
> 
> There is a difference.
> 
> The next time you pass a junior school, glance over at the playground. They were children like them, except abused and neglected. I have huge pity for the poor parents of the child who was killed, but I also have pity for the poor wretches who killed him.





What makes you think that those who couldn't care less about the rights of the child killers have any less understanding of the matter than you do? 

Neglected and abused kids were never too far away in the place I grew up in. I don't think that if any of them had taken it upon themselves to murder a defenceless child they would have received much 'understanding' in the community.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> When you're ten years old you know very well that killing is wrong, no matter what kind of background you come from.



Knowing something is wrong in an intellectual sense is different from feeling something is wrong in an emotional sense. I would say that to kill another child may occur in the context in deficits in the latter and not necessary the former.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So Baby P isn't a victim?





What?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

How much sympathy do you have for abused children, MFish?


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Knowing something is wrong in an intellectual sense is different from feeling something is wrong in an emotional sense. I would say that to kill another child may occur in the context in deficits to do the latter and not necessary the former.




You're trying to intellectualise a fairly simple matter too much.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> What?



You don't have any sympathy for child victims of domestic violence is the impression you're giving.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How much sympathy do you have for abused children, MFish?





Plenty. But none for those that kill toddlers in cold blood.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You don't have any sympathy for child victims of domestic violence is the impression you're giving.





I do. But no sympathy for them if they go out and murder other kids.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I do. But no sympathy for them if they go out and murder other kids.



So it's better that they die then?


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not true.
> 
> Are you gunneradt's stand-in?





In my experience it is true.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

How much sympathy do you have for children who have been so severely abused that they barely recognise themselves as individuals, let alone see others as individuals? How much sympathy do you have for such a child who has been given no chance to develop properly and simply cannot conceive of the idea of right or wrong, or has a completely skewed idea of right and wrong based on what little they have learned from their abusive carers?


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I didn't realise they were considered a danger to society. Does the press know about this?





What I was getting at is the excessive concern for the well being of the killers of their child, as opposed to they, the victims in all this.


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I do. But no sympathy for them if they go out and murder other kids.



Okay - we talked about kids knowing right from wrong.  Where and how do you think they learn this?

How do you think they learn this if their parents beat them and rape them?


----------



## dylans (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> What makes you think that those who couldn't care less about the rights of the child killers have any less understanding of the matter than you do?
> 
> .



Because if you did you wouldn't be such a vile compassion-less knobhead


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> In my experience it is true.


What experience? Are you a professional in the field? A child psychologist who works with sexually abused children, perhaps?


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How much sympathy do you have for children who have been so severely abused that they barely recognise themselves as individuals, let alone see others as individuals? How much sympathy do you have for such a child who has been given no chance to develop properly and simply cannot conceive of the idea of right or wrong, or has a completely skewed idea of right and wrong based on what little they have learned from their abusive carers?





I don't know, is the only honest answer I can give. I don't know, and neither do you or anybody else, what goes on the minds of others. It's all theory.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 4, 2010)

Azrael said:


> Would it prevent a fair trial? What's the evidence for this received wisdom?


The fact that even with the restrictions we have there are frequently problems with securing a fair trial.  Moving trials from a particular area (where there has been more publicity) is absolutely commonplace.  More extensive difficulties in empannelling an untainted jury are not exactly unusual.

And it hardly runs counter to common sense does it?


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

innit said:


> I suspect I have more experience of traumatised kids than you.





I don't care what experience you have of anything.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

Here we go. 'It's all theory'.

I'm outta here.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So it's better that they die then?





Who mentioned anybody dying? The only death in all this is Jamie Bulger, as far as I can see.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Here we go. 'It's all theory'.
> 
> I'm outta here.





What ese is it other than theory and opinion when it comes down to it?


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

dylans said:


> Because if you did you wouldn't be such a vile compassion-less knobhead




As it seems I keep having to restate, I have plenty of compassion for the murdered toddler and his parents.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> All this attention is actually compromising his rehabilitation, his new identity and ultimately his life.


And costing us all a fucking fortune, one way or another ...


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> What I was getting at is the excessive concern for the well being of the killers of their child, as opposed to they, the victims in all this.



I can assure you that they'd have received trauma counselling as a matter of course. If you want them to have equal treatment as the killers then perhaps the press could hound them also?


----------



## dylans (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> As it seems I keep having to restate, I have plenty of compassion for the murdered toddler and his parents.



Your compassion is fake.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I would have known when I was ten years old that tying a toddler to railway lines and battering him with a lump of metal was wrong. So would most of my fellow ten year olds.



So we've gone from the above to this:



Margaret Fish said:


> I don't know, is the only honest answer I can give. I don't know, and neither do you or anybody else, what goes on the minds of others. It's all theory.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I can assure you that they'd have received trauma counselling as a matter of course. If you want them to have equal treatment as the killers then perhaps the press could hound them also?





Generally speaking, if you don't go out and take a life for your own entertainment, you're less likely to be hounded by anybody.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Who mentioned anybody dying? The only death in all this is Jamie Bulger, as far as I can see.



Sympathy for baby P because he died. No sympathy for Venebles or Thompson because they lived to act out their abuse.

You're pretty sick and your feigned moraility bollocks is as transparent as glass.


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Generally speaking, if you don't go out and take a life for your own entertainment, you're less likely to be hounded by anybody.



As you pointed out, you don't know what was going on in their minds so to say "for your own entertainment" is really glib.

I'm out of here too.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> So we've gone from the above to this:




It's easy. You can have a stab at guessing what those you have pretty much daily contact with are thinking, but you can't see inside the minds of those you've never met but wish to empathise with in order to prove an ideological point.


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Sympathy for baby P because he died. No sympathy for Venebles or Thompson because they lived to act out their abuse.
> 
> You're pretty sick and your feigned moraility bollocks is as transparent as glass.



Great post, by the way.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

innit said:


> Great post, by the way.



Cheers.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

innit said:


> As you pointed out, you don't know what was going on in their minds so to say "for your own entertainment" is really glib.
> 
> I'm out of here too.





I don't know what was going on in their minds, but I doubt they thought they were carrying out a social duty or simply playing an alternative to a game of marbles.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> It's easy. You can have a stab at guessing what those you have pretty much daily contact with are thinking, but you can't see inside the minds of those you've never met but wish to empathise with in order to prove an ideological point.


Nobody on here, with the exception perhaps of you, is trying to prove any kind of ideological point. If you think that, you simply don't understand a word that is being said to you.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Sympathy for baby P because he died. No sympathy for Venebles or Thompson because they lived to act out their abuse.
> 
> You're pretty sick and your feigned moraility bollocks is as transparent as glass.





They didn't live to act out their abuse. They murdered a defenceless child in cold blood. 

Being called sick by the type of person you seem to be does not offend me.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Surely the point is that the Bulger boy can never do anything that his killers are (or were until recently in this case) free to do because he isn't around to do anything anymore. His parents, who have never had the chance to see their child grow up, have the heaviest sentence of all to deal with.
> 
> Yes, the relatively deprived backgrounds of the two killers are a factor in the crime. I know from personal experience that bad social conditions enure that bad things will happen more frequently than they happen in better circumstances. That does not mean, however, that those who gratuitously commit murder and other serious crimes should not be punished severely, *as the overwhelming majority living in bad social conditions yet restraining themselves from criminal acts *will readily tell anybody.
> 
> Both the Bulger killers should still be inside.



*whooosh*

That's the sound of everything flying over your head.

Point being that it's not really about "restraining" oneself.  Point is that severe neglect and abuse can effect development so much that one is simply incapable of restraint or even knowing what it means, or that they just haven't developed the capacity to give a shit about anyone else.  It's not about a moral failing on their part, it's a matter of brain development and psychology.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I would have known when I was ten years old that tying a toddler to railway lines and battering him with a lump of metal was wrong. So would most of my fellow ten year olds.



Yes, but presumably you developed relatively normally.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> None of this is any excuse for cold blooded murder, no matter how many books might claim that it is.



Who is excusing it?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> They didn't live to act out their abuse. They murdered a defenceless child in cold blood.
> 
> Being called sick by the type of person you seem to be does not offend me.



You're fucking clueless.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nobody on here, with the exception perhaps of you, is trying to prove any kind of ideological point. If you think that, you simply don't understand a word that is being said to you.





There you go again, trying to claim that anybody who doesn't broadly agree with you lacks understanding of the issue.

Away from the legal profession, social services, internet forums and micropolitics, nothing I've said would be considered in the least bit controversial.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Nobody is excusing it in so many words. Maybe apologising for it would be a better term.



Who is apologising?  Quote them.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You're fucking clueless.





And you're over-emotional and self-righteous.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> *When you're ten years old you know very well that killing is wrong, no matter what kind of background you come from*. So, too, did you, I'd bet. It's more than a vague understanding.
> 
> All this is subjective anyway. My sympathies are with the victims not the killers.



This just isn't true.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Who is apologising?  Quote them.





It's all in the thread. What do you want me to do, write a summary?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> There you go again, trying to claim that anybody who doesn't broadly agree with you lacks understanding of the issue.


Nope. You, specifically, demonstrate a lack of understanding.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> *whooosh*
> 
> That's the sound of everything flying over your head.
> 
> Point being that it's not really about "restraining" oneself.  Point is that severe neglect and abuse can effect development so much that one is simply incapable of restraint or even knowing what it means, or that they just haven't developed the capacity to give a shit about anyone else.  It's not about a moral failing on their part, it's a matter of brain development and psychology.





You seem to be missing the point that I don't care what it's a matter of. I just don't care about the rights or well being of child killers, no matter what their reasons.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> And you're over-emotional and self-righteous.



Link to where I've been emotional and self righteous please? 

tbh you're late to the party. We had all your bollocks yesterday from an equally clueless cunt who at least had the guts to admit he was on a windup (and therefore in the wrong).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> It's all in the thread. What do you want me to do, write a summary?


500 words, including an accurate representation of the posts of those who have taken issue with you, please.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nope. You, specifically, demonstrate a lack of understanding.





You're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> You seem to be missing the point that I don't care what it's a matter of. I just don't care about the rights or well being of child killers, no matter what their reasons.



Well good job you're Billy small potatatos from fuck-alls-ville then, innit?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> In my experience it is true.



If you can quote some research that backs up your views, please do.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> It's easy. You can have a stab at guessing what those you have pretty much daily contact with are thinking, but you can't see inside the minds of those you've never met but wish to empathise with in order to prove an ideological point.


What ideological point is this?.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I don't know, is the only honest answer I can give. I don't know, and neither do you or anybody else, what goes on the minds of others. It's all theory.



Theory doesn't mean guesswork y'know.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 500 words, including an accurate representation of the posts of those who have taken issue with you, please.




Please forgive me if it takes a very long time. I've got a whole list of more important things to be doing, like sticking pins in my eyes.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> What ese is it other than theory and opinion when it comes down to it?





Theories are backed up by evidence and hypotheses.  It's what makes them theories and not opinion.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Theory doesn't mean guesswork y'know.


That's merely you opinion, Blagsta. MFish believes that theory does mean guesswork, and she is entitled to her opinion too.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

sleaterkinney said:


> So we've gone from the above to this:



That's progress at least.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> It's easy. You can have a stab at guessing what those you have pretty much daily contact with are thinking, but you can't see inside the minds of those you've never met but wish to empathise with in order to prove an ideological point.



Who is making an "ideological point"?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> There you go again, trying to claim that anybody who doesn't broadly agree with you lacks understanding of the issue.
> 
> Away from the legal profession, social services, internet forums and micropolitics, nothing I've said would be considered in the least bit controversial.



Maybe you could demonstrate some of your understanding?


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> If you can quote some research that backs up your views, please do.




Again, you're missing the point that I am about as interested in any such research as I am in the rights of child killers. 

Forget personal experience, everybody; it's what those learned types who write research papers tell us that counts.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> It's all in the thread. What do you want me to do, write a summary?



I'm asking you to back up your statement.  You can do that?


----------



## trashpony (Mar 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Theories are backed up by evidence and hypotheses.  It's what makes them theories and not opinion.



Well you could argue maths is a theory but we know 2 + 2 = 4 because we've tried it with real things. In the same way that if children are brutalised,  humiliated and neglected by the people who are supposed to love and care of them, they are very likely to grow up thinking that inflicting pain is fun. We know that because there are children who prove it. It's really not that hard to grasp. Hence the Baby P reference - that kid was never going to grow up and be a youth club leader, he would have been beating the shit out of other kids as soon as he was able. 

fish - please fuck off back to wherever you've come from. I've read every single one of your posts and you make Maggie Thatcher look like a soft hearted liberal.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Maybe you could demonstrate some of your understanding?



I claimed no great understanding. I have merely given an opinion. I don't think that it's particularly important, but neither is yours or those of any others who are concerned for the well being of the child murderers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

At risk of making c66 dangerously smug, that reference to BabyP was a very good one.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> You seem to be missing the point that I don't care what it's a matter of. I just don't care about the rights or well being of child killers, no matter what their reasons.



This is your pov is it?  You don't care about why abused kids can turn out violent?  I find that fucked up tbh.  If we want to stop things like this happening then understanding it is the only option.  I can only take from your posts that you don't really care about preventing these tragedies.  You'd rather froth your own self righteousness everywhere.  Nice attitude.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Please forgive me if it takes a very long time. I've got a whole list of more important things to be doing, like *sticking pins in my eyes.*



be my guest


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Again, you're missing the point that I am about as interested in any such research as I am in the rights of child killers.
> 
> Forget personal experience, everybody; it's what those learned types who write research papers tell us that counts.



That's a no then.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I claimed no great understanding. I have merely given an opinion. I don't think that it's particularly important, but neither is yours or those of any others who are concerned for the well being of the child murderers.



Yes, we all have opinions.  I used to be of the opinion the moon was made of green cheese.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> At risk of making c66 dangerously smug, that reference to BabyP was a very good one.



MrsM made it first, several pages back


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> At risk of making c66 dangerously smug, that reference to BabyP was a very good one.



Mrs M made it earlier in the thread. So she gets the smugness points.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

trashpony said:


> MrsM made it first, several pages back



yup.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

trashpony said:


> MrsM made it first, several pages back


Ah, missed that. Good reference, whoever deserves the credit.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Nobody is excusing it in so many words. Maybe apologising for it would be a better term.



Given no one is apologising for the murder that wouldn't be a better word either. You aeem to think that to debate is to merely rep[eat the same ill founded allegations that gunneradt did last night.... Funnily enough he couldn't show any evidence to say where anyone excused, apologised or defended them either.... Funny that.... not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You have great faith in the infallability of information sharing and the computer systems ... (even before taking into account the changed identity issues which would, no doubt, have resulted in some sort of means of preventing some random cop discovering that they have a Bulger killer standing in front of them ...).
> 
> My experience was that it was rare that release / licence conditions actually made it on to the Police National Computer which is the only system routinely used by the police when dealing with stopped / arrested suspects.  It _may_ have improved (I am aware that HMP staff got PNC training and a role in updating records directly a few years back) ... but I wouldn't put a whole load of £££s on it!



I thought this was all supposed to have been sorted out (info-sharing and update procedures) post-Huntley?


----------



## ymu (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs M nicked it off Barnardo's, who were pointing out the hypocrisy of the press and then got crucified by the press for implying that  poor sweet Baby P was actually a monster.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Harold Hill said:


> Because it's of public interest like it or not.



"Public interest" means something different from what you assume, I suspect. 
It doesn't mean "would the public be interested" (which I'm sure some prurient types would be), it means "on balance, does it serve the public to know this information?". Hence "the public interest test".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I would have known when I was ten years old that tying a toddler to railway lines and battering him with a lump of metal was wrong. So would most of my fellow ten year olds.



He wasn't tied.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> None of this is any excuse for cold blooded murder, no matter how many books might claim that it is.



No-one has said it's an excuse.
What they have said is that it might be a *partial* explanation.
There's a big difference between the two unless you're too stupid to be able to differentiate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> You're trying to intellectualise a fairly simple matter too much.



Or it could be that you're attempting to simplify what's actually a complex matter for anyone with an ounce of inquiry to their mind.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Plenty. But none for those that kill toddlers in cold blood.



What if they kill in hot blood?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> What I was getting at is the excessive concern for the well being of the killers of their child, as opposed to they, the victims in all this.



You (and gunner before you) are taking *any* degree of concern as being "excessive", that much is obvious from what both you and he have written.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

Yeah, and gunneradt was foul to dylans who quite clearly stated his partner and mother of his child had been murdered.....lovely compassionate people who scream their hateful shit at the victim's family


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> And you're over-emotional and self-righteous.



This is, I believe, known as "projection".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> This just isn't true.



It's not even generally applicable. It attributes a knowledge and practice of morality and ethics that most children still haven't fully absorbed by the time they reach adulthood.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> You seem to be missing the point that I don't care what it's a matter of. I just don't care about the rights or well being of child killers, no matter what their reasons.



And if the killer were, G-d forbid, one of your own (or perhaps you are one of those smug people who's absolutely sure that your own offspring could never do such a thing)?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> At risk of making c66 dangerously smug, that reference to BabyP was a very good one.



Don't worry. You can't cause something that's already happened!


----------



## ymu (Mar 4, 2010)

What I always find bemusing about discussions like this is that this just is not a crime that any "normal" person can understand. I don't live my life constantly having to stop myself from torturing and murdering people, so there's no moral high ground to my never having done something like that. It's very weird to see it being discussed by the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade as if it was a simple moral choice and they should be condemned because they gave into temptation.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 4, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Were you physically and sexually abused as a young child? Do you know the kind of damage that can do to a child's ability to learn? The child goes into a permanent state of high alert in such circumstances, and nobody can learn in such a state, so they don't have the chance to learn all kinds of things.
> 
> Go and read a book instead of posting this ignorant crap on here.



Yup. I was very seriously abused (not going to go into details but, yes, you would definitely call it very seriously abused) and at the age of 10 the only people I was fighting were the school bullies, to get them away from the weaker kids they were picking on. I was one of the brightest kids at school and very environmentalism and politics. 

Don't write abused kids off so quickly. It's really, really insulting to them. 

Baby P might well have grown up to be a youth club leader, btw. I did. 

This kind of attitude is why I had to lie to social services and pretend that my upbringing was wonderful. 

Anyway, one of the kids did not come from a violent family and the other kid came from a family where there was casual violence around him but he wasn't beaten himself. Why are you all assuming that they were both abused?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Yeah, and gunneradt was foul to dylans who quite clearly stated his partner and mother of his child had been murdered.....lovely compassionate people who scream their hateful shit at the victim's family



Doing so validates them, I suspect. It makes them feel like they've "done something", something meaningful, when all they've done is regurgitate tabloid sentiment and vent their misanthropy.
Strange how such people are rarely interested in engaging the *causes* of social problems, only with attacking anyone who doesn't follow what they perceive to be the consensus view (and they *always* perceive their view to the consensus view, don't they? ), isn't it?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 4, 2010)

ymu said:


> What I always find bemusing about discussions like this is that this just is not a crime that any "normal" person can understand. I don't live my life constantly having to stop myself from torturing and murdering people, so there's no moral high ground to my never having done something like that. It's very weird to see it being discussed by the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade as if it was a simple moral choice and they should be condemned because they gave into temptation.



Misanthropy?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't worry. You can't cause something that's already happened!



Oh, I'm beyond smug.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 4, 2010)

Scifisam - I think its fairly well established that they were both from abusive environments. And I think this is relevant. Thats not the same as saying that it was the cause of what they did but just that it seems very relevant with respect to them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

ymu said:


> What I always find bemusing about discussions like this is that this just is not a crime that any "normal" person can understand. I don't live my life constantly having to stop myself from torturing and murdering people, so there's no moral high ground to my never having done something like that. It's very weird to see it being discussed by the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade as if it was a simple moral choice and they should be condemned because they gave into temptation.



This is why I get rather peeved by the repetition of "in cold blood". Venables and Thompson weren't Hickock and Smith, they didn't go out looking to prey on someone, things snowballed.


----------



## ymu (Mar 4, 2010)

MC5 said:


> Misanthropy?


I guess. It could be because violence is a fundamental part of their character and they _do_ feel some kind of moral superiority for not having given into temptation themselves (or at least not having been caught). But that's all speculation on my part, of course. It's not an attitude I can ever hope to understand, so my insight is limited.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 4, 2010)

Why is there so much interest in this case over so many millions of others? The world is full of murderers, sadists and torturers. A fair few, if not the majority of them, do it for governments and states.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Don't write abused kids off so quickly. It's really, really insulting to them.


It wasn't my intention to come across like that. And it's fucked up if you've had to lie and hide your past at certain times. 

The most important time in anyone's life is the first four to five years. If you don't achieve any kind of attachment in that period, generally, you're facing an unhill task in developing. But anyway, I don't know the specifics of this or your case, so it would be wrong to make any specific judgement.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 4, 2010)

ymu said:


> It's very weird to see it being discussed by the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade as if it was a simple moral choice and they should be condemned because they gave into temptation.


I support hanging. I've also said it's wrong that the Bulger killers were tried by the adult justice system, and held to criminal responsibility for crimes committed, aged 10. 

So this hang 'em and flog 'em (no flogging, thanks) brigade isn't singing from the same sheet.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Yup. I was very seriously abused (not going to go into details but, yes, you would definitely call it very seriously abused) and at the age of 10 the only people I was fighting were the school bullies, to get them away from the weaker kids they were picking on. I was one of the brightest kids at school and very environmentalism and politics.
> 
> Don't write abused kids off so quickly. It's really, really insulting to them.
> 
> ...



No one is saying all abused kids become violent.  However, there is a correlation.  AFAIK, it's to do with attachment.  If there is one good close relationship the child has with an adult, then they are much less likely to have significant problems.  Problems are much more likely to arise if there are no good relationships at all.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Anyway, one of the kids did not come from a violent family and the other kid came from a family where there was casual violence around him but he wasn't beaten himself. Why are you all assuming that they were both abused?



I'm sure I read somewhere that Thompson was regularly beaten by his older siblings.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

...and sexually abused by another family member and his father was very violent too....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Why is there so much interest in this case over so many millions of others? The world is full of murderers, sadists and torturers. A fair few, if not the majority of them, do it for governments and states.



Because it exemplifies certain attitudes (note the spectrum of attitudes regarding punishment, for example) , and certain beliefs. such as those about whether "badness" is innate, or those that hold that child-on-child murder is a modern phenomenon, rather than one that has (sadly) manifested throughout the history of mankind.
The case is a screen on which people are projecting their views.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 4, 2010)

> I support hanging.



Bit of a downer for people who get wrongly found guilty.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 4, 2010)

Azrael said:


> I support hanging.



The thread in health, relationships, sexuality on Auto-erotic asphyxiation maybe of some interest to you?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 4, 2010)

> Because it exemplifies certain attitudes (note the spectrum of attitudes regarding punishment, for example) , and certain beliefs. such as those about whether "badness" is innate, or those that hold that child-on-child murder is a modern phenomenon, rather than one that has (sadly) manifested throughout the history of mankind.
> The case is a screen on which people are projecting their views.



Probably right about projection. I remember my mate saying that a fair few parents she saw outside of a court case about child abuse a few years back regularly beat the crap out of their kids. Hypocritical fuckers never cease to amaze me.

But at the end of the day these kind of crimes go on all around the world day in, day out. Most of them instigated by the state. Look at Iraq where bodies were/are found day in, day out with their faces drilled out.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...and sexually abused by another family member and his father was very violent too....



...and his mother was an alkie so possibly major neglect thrown into the mix too.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 4, 2010)

What I find most deplorable in what the fish and the gunner have been posting, is their all too obvious desire not to even try to understand what might cause two ten year old boys to take a two years old's life. It's a willful and dangerous ignorance, which feels happier wallowing in outrage at a distance, rather than trying to make enough sense of the cruel and tragic events in order to provide for a safer future. All in all it's shameful stuff made more so by the apparent pleasure they take in not wanting to know. I might conclude that their posts are all about them and nothing about Jamie Bulger.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 4, 2010)

> What I find most deplorable in what the fish and the gunner have been posting, is their all too obvious desire not to even try to understand what might cause two ten year old boys to take a two years old's life. It's a willful and dangerous ignorance, which feels happier wallowing in outrage at a distance, rather than trying to make enough sense of the cruel and tragic events in order to provide for a safer future. All in all it's shameful stuff made more so by the apparent pleasure they take in not wanting to know. I might conclude that their posts are all about them and nothing about Jamie Bulger.



Agree but it's even harsher when it comes to adults. I don't believe people just are the way they are for some random reason. A barbaric society makes some people barbaric. That's not to say people don't have to take responsibility for what they do, but if the state is fine with mass murder and torture it's not a massive surprise that some individuals end up like that.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> ...and his mother was an alkie so possibly major neglect thrown into the mix too.


...and Foetal Alcohol Syndrome is likely too.....


----------



## scifisam (Mar 4, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Scifisam - I think its fairly well established that they were both from abusive environments. And I think this is relevant. Thats not the same as saying that it was the cause of what they did but just that it seems very relevant with respect to them.



No, it's not well-established at all that they were both from abusive environments.  



littlebabyjesus said:


> It wasn't my intention to come across like that. And it's fucked up if you've had to lie and hide your past at certain times.
> 
> The most important time in anyone's life is the first four to five years. If you don't achieve any kind of attachment in that period, generally, you're facing an unhill task in developing. But anyway, I don't know the specifics of this or your case, so it would be wrong to make any specific judgement.



Well, exactly - you don't know the specifics of this case - none of us do. You don't know that they were horribly abused and without a reliable adult. But you're acting as if they definitely were. Why? Because it's easier than admitting that there are lots of reasons that kids can end up doing something this horrible? It's not just sociopaths and horribly abused children or people born 'bad.' 



Citizen66 said:


> I'm sure I read somewhere that Thompson was regularly beaten by his older siblings.



 Older brothers hitting younger brothers is par for the course, I thought. 



Mrs Magpie said:


> ...and sexually abused by another family member and his father was very violent too....



Yep, like I said, one of them did come from a violent background (though I didn't know about the alleged sexual abuse). And the other boy? What about him?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

One of the boys was following the other's lead, probably. 

I'm not acting 'as if they definitely were', btw. All I've done on this thread is counter the arguments of fuckwits.

But if you look for the reasons behind people's behaviour, you generally find them.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...and Foetal Alcohol Syndrome is likely too.....



FAS has physical symptoms. From their photos, neither of them had it. And man, that's a HUGE assumption to make - rumours that his Mum was an alcoholic = FAS. Do all children of alcoholic mothers have FAS? Well, no.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Older brothers hitting younger brothers is par for the course, I thought.



I think similarly aged siblings play fighting is somewhat different to teenage bullies regularly tormenting their pre-pubescent brother.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> FAS has physical symptoms. From their photos, neither of them had it. And man, that's a HUGE assumption to make - rumours that his Mum was an alcoholic = FAS. Do all children of alcoholic mothers have FAS? Well, no.


Actually I work with two girls with FAS and you can't tell by looking at them.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

...I would also add both have terrific adoptive families.


----------



## ymu (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm sure I read somewhere that Thompson was regularly beaten by his older siblings.


It's Venables, IIRC, who had a less obviously traumatic home life. He's also the one that was regularly reported in more sympathetic terms at the time, and there are lots of quotes in the media from people who worked with them who are particularly surprised about Venables being the one to reoffend. 

These things are a product of both genes and environment - it's not just horrific treatment that causes psychopathy, that's just one of the biggest risk factors. It's entirely possible that Venables was the ring-leader and that Thompson just didn't have the mental equipment needed not to go along with him because of his own upbringing. 

It's also entirely possible that this is bollocks. None of us are in a position to judge. We have to delegate this to the professionals who are responsible for them and making judgements about the risk they pose. I don't want to live in a society where people are never given a second chance "just in case".


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

ymu said:


> It's Venables, IIRC, who had a less obviously traumatic home life.



Yep, although (and again IIRC) it was reported way back when that he always seemed disturbed at school. Whether they got to the bottom of that or not has never been reported to my knowledge. But he came from a 'good' family which in media speak I assume means employed in some role deemed as 'acceptable'; perhaps with a level of responsibility.


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

I don't think anyone is demonising child survivors of abuse, or assuming that these two men were abused as children.  The point as I see it, is that their actions don't necessarily mean they were "born bad" or could never rehabilitate - there might be a bit more to the story than gunnerwhatever and MFish seem to think.

I worked with loads of child survivors of abuse and I adored them almost without exception.  Sometimes the damage was close to the surface and sometimes less so, but either way I can't imagine any of them going on to become abusers.  HOWEVER, if any of them did, I would want their experiences to be taken into account when they were judged by others.  I think that is the point people are making here.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 4, 2010)

Liberal. Hang them in Trafalgur Square I say and put their heads on poles on London Bridge.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yep, although (and again IIRC) it was reported way back when that he always seemed disturbed at school. Whether they got to the bottom of that or not has never been reported to my knowledge. But he came from a 'good' family which in media speak I assume means employed in some role deemed as 'acceptable'; perhaps with a level of responsibility.



"good" families can mess kids up too, this is often what gets forgotten.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> "good" families can mess kids up too, this is often what gets forgotten.



Well yeah. I probably read it in the Mail and they are perhaps middle class or petit bourgeois as that makes people worthy, apparently.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> "good" families can mess kids up too, this is often what gets forgotten.



Totally. People see trauma as some blunt force, and often it is. But it can also be the constant drip of smaller traumatic interactions repeated thousands of times across a childs life in their interactions with parents. Sort of cumulative model of trauma, that can seriously skew or distort the developing personality.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

One of the most worrying kids I ever worked with had what *appeared* to be a model middle-class family. They presented themselves as a perfect example of a caring family...I always suspected there was something very weird going on. Their kid was polite and as cold as ice. He used to hurt other kids, but sneakily. This child was about 8 or 9. It's the chaotic neglectful violent families that are obvious. I've worked with plenty of fucked-up kids from middle-class families. They're not so obvious at first glance.


----------



## Harold Hill (Mar 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Public interest" means something different from what you assume, I suspect.
> It doesn't mean "would the public be interested" (which I'm sure some prurient types would be), it means "on balance, does it serve the public to know this information?". Hence "the public interest test".



Ok, I don't need the difference between of and in the public interest explained to me again.  I didn't in the first place.

Do you not think it is naive for people to ask why this is being reported or has been leaked and why they can't get on with their lives?

Because millions of people want them dead because they did 8 years for killing a child and no media outlet is going to sit on the cash cow of that public anger for a second longer than they have to.


----------



## dylans (Mar 4, 2010)

Two things strike me about this discussion. The first is how fucking decent most people on this site are. It has been said on here that the views of posters don't represent the "views of the public" (whatever that means) If the views of the public really are as viciously ignorant as some say (which I doubt) It is the credit of the posters on here that they don't share that. I can't tell you how refreshing that is. Sometimes I love this site and the people on it. I love the fact that the few idiots that showed their faces on this thread were given a sound thrashing by everyone. 

Second, it always irritates me how the "condemn more understand less" brigade always claim to speak for victims families. To me, losing someone to violence made me more determined to understand, more determined to ensure that compassion and basic decency were not lost to rage and hate and crude simplistic stereotypes like "monster" or born bad or evil. These are  meaningless words that answer nothing. But then, to those  who use these tragedies to vent their hate,  they are not meant to answer anything.  In fact they are meant to discourage understanding. Seeking answers is denounced as "weak" or "liberal" or "misguided" or for "intellectualising" (as if thinking were ever a bad thing)

 As I said before, this is fake hate and fake compassion for victims.This crime didn't touch them personally but they act as though it did and claim they express their outrage on behalf of people like me. They use these tragedies as a way of validating their own bigoted ignorance, indeed they celebrate it. The blind  accusation that those of us who seek to understand or seek to look at this kind of tragedy with compassion  care more for "monsters" than "victims" is not only utterly transparent, its deeply offensive.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 4, 2010)

mrs magpie- yep,...its like those very well to do, conservative high achieving middle class families where everything on the surface seems perfect, yet their daughter is being tube fed in hospital for anorexia as she's close to death. Certainly seen that a few times, where there's clearly some very fucked up family dynamics under the veneer...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

....have we worked together CJohn?
....here's something I posted a while ago....
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9572223&postcount=339


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

dylans said:


> Two things strike me about this discussion. The first is how fucking decent most people on this site are. It has been said on here that the views of posters don't represent the "views of the public" (whatever that means) If the views of the public really are as viciously ignorant as some say (which I doubt) It is the credit of the posters on here that they don't share that. I can't tell you how refreshing that is. Sometimes I love this site and the people on it. I love the fact that the few idiots that showed their faces on this thread were given a sound thrashing by everyone.
> 
> Second, it always irritates me how the "condemn more understand less" brigade always claim to speak for victims families. To me, losing someone to violence made me more determined to understand, more determined to ensure that compassion and basic decency were not lost to rage and hate and crude simplistic stereotypes like "monster" or born bad or evil. These are  meaningless words that answer nothing. But then, to those  who use these tragedies to vent their hate,  they are not meant to answer anything.  In fact they are meant to discourage understanding. Seeking answers is denounced as "weak" or "liberal" or "misguided" or for "intellectualising" (as if thinking were ever a bad thing)
> 
> As I said before, this is fake hate and fake compassion for victims.This crime didn't touch them personally but they act as though it did and claim they express their outrage on behalf of people like me. They use these tragedies as a way of validating their own bigoted ignorance, indeed they celebrate it. The blind  accusation that those of us who seek to understand or seek to look at this kind of tragedy with compassion  care more for "monsters" than "victims" is not only utterly transparent, its deeply offensive.



What a wonderful post....


----------



## CJohn (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ....have we worked together CJohn?
> ....here's something I posted a while ago....
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9572223&postcount=339



I guess you just see these patterns all over. I hadn't noticed the over-representation of psychiatrist in particular, thats interesting. High acheivement orientated parents is a bit of a theme though...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

dylans said:


> Two things strike me about this discussion. The first is how fucking decent most people on this site are. It has been said on here that the views of posters don't represent the "views of the public" (whatever that means) If the views of the public really are as viciously ignorant as some say (which I doubt) It is the credit of the posters on here that they don't share that. I can't tell you how refreshing that is. Sometimes I love this site and the people on it. I love the fact that the few idiots that showed their faces on this thread were given a sound thrashing by everyone.
> 
> Second, it always irritates me how the "condemn more understand less" brigade always claim to speak for victims families. To me, losing someone to violence made me more determined to understand, more determined to ensure that compassion and basic decency were not lost to rage and hate and crude simplistic stereotypes like "monster" or born bad or evil. These are  meaningless words that answer nothing. But then, to those  who use these tragedies to vent their hate,  they are not meant to answer anything.  In fact they are meant to discourage understanding. Seeking answers is denounced as "weak" or "liberal" or "misguided" or for "intellectualising" (as if thinking were ever a bad thing)
> 
> As I said before, this is fake hate and fake compassion for victims.This crime didn't touch them personally but they act as though it did and claim they express their outrage on behalf of people like me. They use these tragedies as a way of validating their own bigoted ignorance, indeed they celebrate it. The blind  accusation that those of us who seek to understand or seek to look at this kind of tragedy with compassion  care more for "monsters" than "victims" is not only utterly transparent, its deeply offensive.



This is so true. What makes me despair is when people say things like, you wouldn't hold those bleeding heart liberal views if you/your child had been raped/murdered. How dare they assume they know anything about personal stuff that may have happened. I've even been accused of lying when I say my family has personal experience of something like that because the ignorant assumption is that you'd immediately turn into some gun-wielding Bronson-like vigilante.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Harold Hill said:


> Ok, I don't need the difference between of and in the public interest explained to me again.  I didn't in the first place.


Then why mis-apply the phrase "in the first place"?


> Do you not think it is naive to ask why this is being reported or has been leaked and why they can't get on with their lives?


I don't think it's naive of people to ask, although I suspect they're naive if they don't believe the leak was deliberate. 


> Because millions of people want them dead because they did 8 years for killing a child and no media outlet is going to sit on the cash cow of that public anger for a second longer than they have to.


I'd say you're putting the cart before the horse there, and that the media are determined to profit by stirring up public anger, just like they did at the time of the crime, and just like they do with any such case. They're pulling the (heart)strings and people are reacting in exactly the way that the media need to "sell" this story more thoroughly, and quite possibly "justify" (at least to themselves) breaching the privacy order.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Theories are backed up by evidence and hypotheses.  It's what makes them theories and not opinion.




Doesn't stop many theories being false.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You (and gunner before you) are taking *any* degree of concern as being "excessive", that much is obvious from what both you and he have written.





In my case it isn't.


----------



## dylans (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> In my case it isn't.



Why don't you just fuck off.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> And if the killer were, G-d forbid, one of your own (or perhaps you are one of those smug people who's absolutely sure that your own offspring could never do such a thing)?





I don't think it's being conceited to say with certainty that no child of mine would be capable of such a crime.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Why is there so much interest in this case over so many millions of others? The world is full of murderers, sadists and torturers. A fair few, if not the majority of them, do it for governments and states.





Nothing to do with anything. 

If you were mugged, you wouldn't tell the police to lay off because the bankers stole infinitely more.


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I don't think it's being conceited to say with certainty that no child of mine would be capable of such a crime.


Oh, just fuck the fuck off.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 4, 2010)

dylans said:


> Two things strike me about this discussion. The first is how fucking decent most people on this site are. It has been said on here that the views of posters don't represent the "views of the public" (whatever that means) If the views of the public really are as viciously ignorant as some say (which I doubt) It is the credit of the posters on here that they don't share that. I can't tell you how refreshing that is. Sometimes I love this site and the people on it. I love the fact that the few idiots that showed their faces on this thread were given a sound thrashing by everyone.
> 
> Second, it always irritates me how the "condemn more understand less" brigade always claim to speak for victims families. To me, losing someone to violence made me more determined to understand, more determined to ensure that compassion and basic decency were not lost to rage and hate and crude simplistic stereotypes like "monster" or born bad or evil. These are  meaningless words that answer nothing. But then, to those  who use these tragedies to vent their hate,  they are not meant to answer anything.  In fact they are meant to discourage understanding. Seeking answers is denounced as "weak" or "liberal" or "misguided" or for "intellectualising" (as if thinking were ever a bad thing)
> 
> As I said before, this is fake hate and fake compassion for victims.This crime didn't touch them personally but they act as though it did and claim they express their outrage on behalf of people like me. They use these tragedies as a way of validating their own bigoted ignorance, indeed they celebrate it. The blind  accusation that those of us who seek to understand or seek to look at this kind of tragedy with compassion  care more for "monsters" than "victims" is not only utterly transparent, its deeply offensive.



I think to try and understand - to truly make sense of something - involves trying to extend a degree of understanding and empathy towards the victimizers. And for many this is a terrifying thing to do, to recognise the humanity in other people, despite what they have done. Doing this fractures the (false) sense of security and order than comes from spltting the world off into managable categories of 'good' and 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong', 'light' and 'dark'. It opens up something much more flexible, fluid and ultimately frightening.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What I find most deplorable in what the fish and the gunner have been posting, is their all too obvious desire not to even try to understand what might cause two ten year old boys to take a two years old's life. It's a willful and dangerous ignorance, which feels happier wallowing in outrage at a distance, rather than trying to make enough sense of the cruel and tragic events in order to provide for a safer future. All in all it's shameful stuff made more so by the apparent pleasure they take in not wanting to know. I might conclude that their posts are all about them and nothing about Jamie Bulger.
> 
> Louis MacNeice





I do understancd the counter-arguments, and I don't think I've particularly expressed any outrage. All I've said is that I don't care about the rights or well being of a pair of child killers. I doubt that most people do. 

No amount of understanding will prevent the same kind of things happening again. And again. The world is an evil place.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or it could be that you're attempting to simplify what's actually a complex matter for anyone with an ounce of inquiry to their mind.



It's perfectly possible to take a simple approach to what may be a complex problem. Sometimes it helps.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I don't think it's being conceited to say with certainty that no child of mine would be capable of such a crime.



It is.

My mother never thought my sister (housefire) and my identical twin brother would be dead in her life time and that I would find myself admitted to an acute mental health ward over the christmas period. She still believes that she hasn't been diagnosed with Alzheimer's either. Life is not a fucking middle class sitcom for everyone mush.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Doesn't stop many theories being false.



oh for fucks sake


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> In my case it isn't.



fake


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 4, 2010)

> Because millions of people want them dead because they did 8 years for killing a child and no media outlet is going to sit on the cash cow of that public anger for a second longer than they have to.



Maybe so but in that case there will be a lot of killings to carry out because murder, torture, rape and very sadistic crimes are not exactly a rarity. A fair few of the executions would start with employees of the state.


----------



## Harold Hill (Mar 4, 2010)

dylans said:


> Second, it always irritates me how the "condemn more understand less" brigade always claim to speak for victims families. To me, losing someone to violence made me more determined to understand, more determined to ensure that compassion and basic decency were not lost to rage and hate and crude simplistic stereotypes like "monster" or born bad or evil. These are  meaningless words that answer nothing. But then, to those  who use these tragedies to vent their hate,  they are not meant to answer anything.  In fact they are meant to discourage understanding. Seeking answers is denounced as "weak" or "liberal" or "misguided" or for "intellectualising" (as if thinking were ever a bad thing)
> 
> .



Going by the views I've heard since the story broke, the anger and resentment is a reaction to the drip drip stories of how much money has been spent rehabilitating them, speculation about them being taken to Old Trafford
and their university education.  The old  being 'rewarded' for crime rather than out and out condemnation of what they actually did.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I do understancd the counter-arguments, and I don't think I've particularly expressed any outrage. *All I've said* is that I don't care about the rights or well being of a pair of child killers. I doubt that most people do.
> 
> No amount of understanding will prevent the same kind of things happening again. And again. The world is an evil place.



that's not true is it


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

ymu said:


> We have to delegate this to the professionals who are responsible for them and making judgements about the risk they pose.




And this spoken on a board where most people claim to want some form of socialism or communism, and rightly say that for it to be genuine it must involve a large degree of self-rule by ordinary people.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> And this spoken on a board where most people claim to want some form of socialism or communism, and rightly say that for it to be genuine it must involve a large degree of self-rule by ordinary people.



That doesn't mean stopping thinking about stuff.


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> And this spoken on a board where most people claim to want some form of socialism or communism, and rightly say that for it to be genuine it must involve a large degree of self-rule by ordinary people.



you seem to have made a detailed assessment of the boards in the few hours since you registered


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> This is so true. What makes me despair is when people say things like, you wouldn't hold those bleeding heart liberal views if you/your child had been raped/murdered. How dare they assume they know anything about personal stuff that may have happened. I've even been accused of lying when I say my family has personal experience of something like that because the ignorant assumption is that you'd immediately turn into some gun-wielding Bronson-like vigilante.



Well said. 
I'm proud to admit that I hold "bleeding heart liberal" views *because* (as with dylans) of what I've personally experienced, as well as because of what I've been privy to in my former employment at the Home Office. As far as I'm concerned, if I'd have become hate-filled at what I've experienced, I'd have lost doubly, because I'd have allowed people and circumstances to rob me of my humanity.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 4, 2010)

> Going by the views I've heard since the story broke, the anger and resentment is a reaction to the drip drip stories of how much money has been spent rehabilitating them, speculation about them being taken to Old Trafford
> and their university education. The old being 'rewarded' for crime rather than out and out condemnation of what they actually did.



Fair enough but it's peanuts compared to the billions that the criminals get that run society and kill and torture millions into the bargain.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> None of this is any excuse for cold blooded murder, no matter how many books might claim that it is.


Nobody's presenting it as an "excuse".

It's an explanation for what motivated them. Knowing that might enable us to not only make it less likely that they'd do such a thing again, but also helps us understand what kind of experiences make someone into a cold-blooded murder.

Because, count on it, all this guff about "innate evil" is just a cop-out, and complete bollocks to boot.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

innit said:


> I don't think anyone is demonising child survivors of abuse, or assuming that these two men were abused as children.  The point as I see it, is that their actions don't necessarily mean they were "born bad" or could never rehabilitate - there might be a bit more to the story than gunnerwhatever and MFish seem to think.





My argument hasn't been the same as this gunnerwhatever character, whoever he or she is. All I've said is that I sympathise with the family of the murdered child and don't care at all for the rights or well being of his killers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Doesn't stop many theories being false.



That's why you test them to breaking point with hypotheses: To see whether they're generally applicable, or whether they're not.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> My argument hasn't been the same as this gunnerwhatever character, whoever he or she is. *All I've said is* that I sympathise with the family of the murdered child and don't care at all for the rights or well being of his killers.



short term memory loss too


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 4, 2010)

> Nothing to do with anything.
> 
> If you were mugged, you wouldn't tell the police to lay off because the bankers stole infinitely more.



What are you talking about? I'm saying the story is nothing out of the ordinary compared to what is going on around the world, yet it gets a massive amount of publicity. Yet the murder and torture of the state often goes unmentioned. I wonder why.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> In my case it isn't.



Ask any 1st year psychology student what sort of pathology such self-certainty demonstrates.

Hint: It's not "nobleness of purpose".


----------



## fogbat (Mar 4, 2010)

innit said:


> you seem to have made a detailed assessment of the boards in the few hours since you registered



I'd like to see a response to this, please, Fishy


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> And this spoken on a board where most people claim to want some form of socialism or communism, and rightly say that for it to be genuine it must involve a large degree of self-rule by ordinary people.


I am by no means a leftie. I do know a good Russian proverb though,


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> This is so true. What makes me despair is when people say things like, you wouldn't hold those bleeding heart liberal views if you/your child had been raped/murdered. How dare they assume they know anything about personal stuff that may have happened. I've even been accused of lying when I say my family has personal experience of something like that because the ignorant assumption is that you'd immediately turn into some gun-wielding Bronson-like vigilante.





I don't think that most people care about the backgrounds of the killers. They just want the killers off the streets. For this reasonable wish they are denigrated by the self-declared enlightened minority.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 4, 2010)

> My argument hasn't been the same as this gunnerwhatever character, whoever he or she is. All I've said is that I sympathise with the family of the murdered child and don't care at all for the rights or well being of his killers.



So you wouldn't have cared if at 10 years old they were strung up in a public execution. If the answer is you would care then your statement is total bullshit. If your answer is no then you're a sadistic twisted fucker. You choose.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I am by no means a leftie. I do know a good Russian proverb though,



What does that mean?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I don't think it's being conceited to say with certainty that no child of mine would be capable of such a crime.



Not just conceited, but quite possibly a case of pathological denial.
You see, *everyone* "is capable of" such crimes. Everyone.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I don't think that most people care about the backgrounds of the killers. They just want the killers off the streets. For this reasonable wish they are denigrated by the self-declared enlightened minority.



froth froth


----------



## fogbat (Mar 4, 2010)

Russian for "You're busted, chum", I like to imagine


----------



## dylans (Mar 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> froth froth



and fake fake.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> What does that mean?


A fish stinks from the head.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 4, 2010)

> I don't think it's being conceited to say with certainty that no child of mine would be capable of such a crime.



Not in my name, it's just not acceptable.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

dylans said:


> Why don't you just fuck off.




You're a charming individual, aren't you?  

Funny how intolerant those who wear their compassion and enlightenment on their sleeves can be.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> +1
> 
> I don't know why the press insist that they have a 'right' to get any gory details. All this attention is actually compromising his rehabilitation, his new identity and ultimately his life.


Yup. Another one here.

Of course, the flaw in that argument is that quite a lot of people think that he doesn't deserve a life...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> It's perfectly possible to take a simple approach to what may be a complex problem. Sometimes it helps.



Often it doesn't. Reductionism is like that, unfortunately. It sounds great, but it doesn't work so well.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> You're a charming individual, aren't you?
> 
> Funny how intolerant those who wear their compassion and enlightenment on their sleeves can be.



You're the one with the fake moral outrage.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> that's not true is it




Why, what have I added? Unlike some on here, I haven't claimed any special insight into the criminal mind.


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> You're a charming individual, aren't you?
> 
> Funny how intolerant those who wear their compassion and enlightenment on their sleeves can be.



Have you read dylans' posts?  You should.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 4, 2010)

Some define the Age of Enlightenment as beginning in Britain's Glorious Revolution of 1688. Preferable to the age of reaction we find ourselves in now.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 4, 2010)

> Funny how intolerant those who wear their compassion and enlightenment on their sleeves can be.



Not sure about compassion and enlightenment I just don't think people talking shit is much fun to listen to.


----------



## Margaret Fish (Mar 4, 2010)

innit said:


> Oh, just fuck the fuck off.





Here's another one. Compassion combined with loutishness. Lovely.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> What I was getting at is the excessive concern for the well being of the killers of their child, as opposed to they, the victims in all this.


"Excessive" concern?

So what, to you, is an "appropriate" level of concern?


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 4, 2010)

> So what, to you, is an "appropriate" level of concern?



Well she says she has no concern for their well being so presumably wouldn't care if they were slowly tortured to death. A bit fucked up but there you go.

Doubt that would be raised at the dinner parties though.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

Well, we'll never know now. 
My liberal heart bleeds.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> Why, what have I added? Unlike some on here, I haven't claimed any special insight into the criminal mind.



Such dishonesty.  Shall I remind you?



Margaret Fish said:


> *When you're ten years old you know very well that killing is wrong, no matter what kind of background you come from*. So, too, did you, I'd bet. It's more than a vague understanding.
> 
> All this is subjective anyway. My sympathies are with the victims not the killers.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> And this spoken on a board where most people claim to want some form of socialism or communism, and rightly say that for it to be genuine it must involve a large degree of self-rule by ordinary people.



So you're now the expert on urban75 after 45 posts?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

oh she's been banned


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

She's gone


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> I don't think that most people care about the backgrounds of the killers. They just want the killers off the streets. For this reasonable wish they are denigrated by the self-declared enlightened minority.



At least that's the discourse you're attempting to create: One where you're the brave truthspeaker being denigrated by people who're ideologically-committed to oppose the consensus viewpoint.
The truth is, of course, that you, like gunner, hide your misanthropy behind an appeal to your views according with those of "most people", when actually they merely accord with the bleatings of a vocal minority of emotionally-incontinent saddos.


----------



## innit (Mar 4, 2010)

good


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 4, 2010)

...and I got to use the only Russian proverb I know in an appropriate manner....my work here is done...I'm off to bed.....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So you're now the expert on urban75 after 45 posts?



Not really an expert if "she" actually believed that this is "...a board where most people claim to want some form of socialism or communism", though!


----------



## dylans (Mar 4, 2010)

I love you guys sometimes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> She's gone



Like a flushed stool, leaving only a bad smell behind.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...and I got to use the only Russian proverb I know in an appropriate manner....




Great post, btw, dylans.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not really an expert if "she" actually believed that this is "...a board where most people claim to want some form of socialism or communism", though!



Why, are the commies a minority on here? 

Actually I can believe we are, although I'm sure it didn't used to be the case.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 4, 2010)

An updated poll would clarify the politics of the board now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Why, are the commies a minority on here?
> 
> Actually I can believe we are, although I'm sure it didn't used to be the case.



It might only be my perception, but the politics do seem a bit more "centred" in *party politics* rather than about the theory and practice of socialism or communism nowadays (the praxis of The Black Hand notwithstanding).


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 4, 2010)

MC5 said:


> An updated poll would clarify the politics of the board now.



Start one then. I'd definitely miss an option and have poll fail.


----------



## Harold Hill (Mar 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Then why mis-apply the phrase "in the first place"?
> 
> I don't think it's naive of people to ask, although I suspect they're naive if they don't believe the leak was deliberate.
> 
> I'd say you're putting the cart before the horse there, and that the media are determined to profit by stirring up public anger, just like they did at the time of the crime, and just like they do with any such case. They're pulling the (heart)strings and people are reacting in exactly the way that the media need to "sell" this story more thoroughly, and quite possibly "justify" (at least to themselves) breaching the privacy order.



I don't think I did.  

Probably but I'd rather hear about it than not.

All true but even a 27 year old Jon Venables would have known this.  He knew the terms of his licence and he still broke it. If you don't want a shitstorm, don't invite one around for dinner surely.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2010)

MC5 said:


> An updated poll would clarify the politics of the board now.


Kind of. It would only register those who could be bothered to vote in such a poll, though. The majority won't vote at all. Also, the balance of the board does depend on the activity and quality of the posters, not just their numbers. 

There are definitely many more _well-informed _left-wing posters than right-wing on here. I can only think of one vaguely right-wing poster I have respect for.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 4, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Start one then. I'd definitely miss an option and have poll fail.



In general.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=10389012#post10389012


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 4, 2010)

Harold Hill said:


> I don't think I did.
> 
> Probably but I'd rather hear about it than not.


Why, are you worried that Venables might slit your throat as you sleep, or something? because I can't think of another reason (except prurience) why it would bother anyone, otherwise.


> All true but even a 27 year old Jon Venables would have known this.  He knew the terms of his licence and he still broke it. If you don't want a shitstorm, don't invite one around for dinner surely.


Which neatly places all the blame on Venables and does nothing to address how, if the newspaper reports are true, he wasn't recalled soon after being freed.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Don't write abused kids off so quickly. It's really, really insulting to them.


I don't think anyone's writing them off, scifisam. And I don't want you to feel in any way that, in what I'm writing here, I'm minimising or diminishing your own experiences.

I don't know anything about your history, but it is clear from how you write that, no matter what your experiences may have done to you, you do have the capacity to order your thoughts, express them articulately, and debate in a reasonable and civilised manner. Those are not all innate characteristics - they are things that we learn, at all kinds of levels, as we develop. You demonstrate that it is possible, even while being seriously abused, for some people to come through with core social and emotional skills. My belief is that this comes from having at least one influential adult in your early life who isn't abusing or maltreating the child, and who is able to act as a role model - perhaps the only one - to give the child some kind of developmental influence, to enable them to develop skills like dealing with different moods, empathy, relating to the other as a separate person, all kinds of core stuff that we usually take for granted.

Until it's not there: some people. perhaps because, as well as being systematically and traumatically abused, they had NO normalising influences in their lives (or possibly some kind of congenital cognitive impairment) don't get the early development of those skills sorted out. From then, they're always a bit behind the game, and there are plenty of opportunities for sociopathic ideas and patterns of thought to develop. They will also become aware that there is a whole level of subtlety to people's interactions that they just don't get, and - a common reaction to any kind of inferiority - resent their perceived exclusion.

That resentment, coupled with any shame and/or anger arising from the abuse, and their poorly developed social skills, put in place all the things that need to be there to create minds that will do the kind of thing Venables was convicted for. 

A lot of the same things can happen to people who are severely abused, though whose life had at least some stable elements in it, but I suspect that we'd find that the problems arising from that situation aren't as pervasive as they might be in the systemically abused cases.

We have to remember that these are actually very rare cases. There's plenty of lower-order misbehaviour that children get up to, but the number who commit acts like those committed by James Bulger's killers are vanishingly small in proportion to the total number of kids. So something's going right, most of the time. Of course, there's always room for improvement, not only to head off things like your own experiences of abuse, but doing more to spot the conditions which create that small number of such badly maladjusted children, and do something about changing them.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Mar 4, 2010)

*Jon Venables jailed 'after fighting workmate'*

From the Scotsman



> JAMES Bulger killer Jon Venables was taken back into custody after a fight with a colleague at work.
> 
> The 27-year-old grappled with a workmate and had to be pulled away, eventually being suspended from his workplace after an official complaint was made. He was then recalled to prison.
> 
> He is also alleged to have had a history of drug abuse since being released in 2001 on licence after serving eight years for the murder.


----------



## ymu (Mar 4, 2010)

That's his anonymity blown completely then. Marvellous.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 4, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Can you explain your second log-in, Ms Fish?





Mrs Magpie said:


> Feigned ignorance Ms Fish. There are two log-ins from the your IP address.





Margaret Fish said:


> Yes, but from two different people using the same computer, one of whom seldom posts anymore.





Margaret Fish said:


> ... like sticking pins in my eyes.






			
				mrskp said:
			
		

> ... and sticking pins in my eyes


 (last post Jan 2006)




			
				dolly's gal said:
			
		

> Sticking pins in my eyes ...


 (regular poster)


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 4, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I thought this was all supposed to have been sorted out (info-sharing and update procedures) post-Huntley?


It is _supposed to have been_ ... but it hasn't.  

(And the prison service (and probation) are some of the worst at it - they simply do not connect the release of an offender with any sort of need to update the cops or anyone else who may need to do stuff outside their walls ... )


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 4, 2010)

will self making some very cogent points on qt tonight.


----------



## dylans (Mar 4, 2010)

Fullyplumped said:


> From the Scotsman



Wasn't that meant to be illegal? I thought there was a court injunction or whatever banning this kind of disclosure.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Mar 4, 2010)

dylans said:


> Wasn't that meant to be illegal? I thought there was a court injunction or whatever banning this kind of disclosure.


Mirror reported much the same. Media is feeling bullish since Terry got fucked over. Face it, Venables isn't going to get much sympathy if he takes the papers to courts if they blow his privacy is he?


----------



## ymu (Mar 4, 2010)

dylans said:


> Wasn't that meant to be illegal? I thought there was a court injunction or whatever banning this kind of disclosure.


Only in England.

Or maybe not ... just saw Paulie's post.


----------



## Azrael (Mar 4, 2010)

tombowler said:


> sorry i find that i agree with db here if all the salacious details were out there it would be impossible to find a jury who did not already have an opinion as to the accused guilt or not there fore not giving a fair trial, I am pretty sure there are many cases in law to prove this point hence the often used reporting bans till after the trial, i don't think the judiciary  would just do/say this on a whim.


Since jury deliberations are all secret, how do we know the exact effect it has on them? 


detective-boy said:


> The fact that even with the restrictions we have there are frequently problems with securing a fair trial.  Moving trials from a particular area (where there has been more publicity) is absolutely commonplace.  More extensive difficulties in empannelling an untainted jury are not exactly unusual.
> 
> And it hardly runs counter to common sense does it?


The idea of an "untainted" jury is curious. What's to stop jurors putting the gossip to one side, and focusing on the facts? Again, as it's secret, how do we know?


----------



## Azrael (Mar 4, 2010)

MC5 said:


> The thread in health, relationships, sexuality on Auto-erotic asphyxiation maybe of some interest to you?


Curious how some abolitionists are so interested in the pornography of the gallows. 

Ah well, takes all sorts!


----------



## audiotech (Mar 4, 2010)

Nice try.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 4, 2010)

It _really_ did look like many people on here were assuming that both boys had been seriously abused. If that's not the case, then a lot of the posts don't make any sense at all. And, er, a couple of posts stated outright that they'd both been abused. 



Harold Hill said:


> Going by the views I've heard since the story broke, the anger and resentment is a reaction to the drip drip stories of how much money has been spent rehabilitating them, speculation about them being taken to Old Trafford
> and their university education.  The old  being 'rewarded' for crime rather than out and out condemnation of what they actually did.



See, they didn't get any university education, and even that Mail link earlier that was trying to make it sound like they had cushy lives actually made me think that their lives were really shit. Yes, one of them got allowed to go to a football match. Big deal. One football match - one of very few times outside the youth prison - in 8 years. 

And then the Mail said the boys got a 'free holiday' to protect them when the anniversary came up. If they were sent away to be protected, it's more likely that they were simply locked up in a diferent room to usual rather than running around funfairs. 

Their lives on the inside don't sound like _hell_, though, and I guess that's what some people wanted.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 4, 2010)

scifisam said:


> It _really_ did look like many people on here were assuming that both boys had been seriously abused. If that's not the case, then a lot of the posts don't make any sense at all. And, er, a couple of posts stated outright that they'd both been abused.



afaik they both came from abusive or neglectful backgrounds


----------



## treelover (Mar 5, 2010)

> will self making some very cogent points on qt tonight.



Agreed, whether you agreed with him or not ,Will's robust defence of the lack of culpability of children in extreme crimes was very elequent and admirable.

The Vord(has she had PS?) was spitting blood as he said it.


----------



## treelover (Mar 5, 2010)

Btw,never has the old adage, 'Power without Responsibility' seemed more apt to describe todays media, one suspects it will indeed lead to the end for venables.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 5, 2010)

treelover said:


> Btw,never has the old adage, 'Power without Responsibility' seemed more apt to describe todays media, one suspects it will indeed lead to the end for venables.



They don't even recognise their own involvement in the mechanics of things.

They got the royal arse when people got a court order preventing them publishing their affairs. Then they managed to run with the John Terry story in the end. John Terry gets booted off the England squad which leaves the press whining that England's chances in the next cup could be scuppered because of it all...

Erm... hello...?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 5, 2010)

Margaret Fish said:


> *I do understand the counter-arguments*, and I don't think I've particularly expressed any outrage. All I've said is that I don't care about the rights or well being of a pair of child killers. I doubt that most people do.
> 
> No amount of understanding will prevent the same kind of things happening again. And again. *The world is an evil place*.



You are all over the shop; on the one hand you dismiss all the attempts to understand how Jamie Bulger's death may have come about as 'theories', while on the other you put up your very own 'theory' i.e. 'the world is an evil place'. If this is the extent of your insight (that bad things happen) then I'm not surprised you don't count it as 'special'. I am surprised, given your loudly professed sympathy for Jamie's family, that you don't try to dig bit deeper as to why bad things happen; after all it's digging that could save future pain and heartache. Putting your hands over your ears and shouting 'I don't care' won't make the bad stuff go away; it's time you grew up a little and stopped trying to hide behind childish bluster.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. sorry didn't see they had been banned.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 5, 2010)

dylans said:


> Wasn't that meant to be illegal? I thought there was a court injunction or whatever banning this kind of disclosure.


The Scotsman is a past master at exploiting the fact that Scotland is a different legal jurisdiction to England and Wales (somewhat bizarrely ...) ... perhaps the Scottish Parliament should be presented with the bill for any resultant expense caused by the fuckwittedness of the Scottish media ...


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 5, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> They don't even recognise their own involvement in the mechanics of things.


Indeed.

The judiciary missed a golden oppportunity a few years ago when the Sunday Mirror fucked up the Leeds "racist" attack trial involving the footballers.  That was absolutely clear contempt of Court and should have resulted in an absolutely fucking massive fine for the paper (bankrupting it if necessary) AND some jail time for the editor.  Chances like that don't come along all that often and, since then, they've continued to push the boundaries further and further, bolstered by the fact that the Courts lack the bottle to hold them to account (and, as it was contempt, it was simply the Courts, not the police or the CPS, to whom the decision fell).


----------



## scooter (Mar 5, 2010)

Honestly don't understand all the strong feeling about this case - I mean above and beyond any other child murder case. As Self was intimating on QT, since they were kids when they committed the murder then they are less culpable than if an adult had done it not more culpable. 

Why do the press (and apparently the general public) have such a hard on for hating them?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 5, 2010)

scooter said:


> Why do the press (and apparently the general public) have such a hard on for hating them?



The press love it because it sells newspapers. If they really cared about child deaths the Sun and the News of the Screws would be campaigning for 20mph speed limits in all towns and cities. The unpleasant crowd of haters in the general public are just impotent morons trying to forget their own pathetic, miserable lives for a moment by focusing their own self-hatred outwards onto these easy targets.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 5, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Well research shows that adolescent psychopathy predicts adult psychopathy and future anti-social behaviour. And I suppose that I am presuming that killing a child intentionally is as close to a definition of psychopathy is adolescence as we can get. Of course its not all set in stone, thankfully.



I think you are referring to predictive factors rather than predicting per se


----------



## dylans (Mar 5, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> The press love it because it sells newspapers. If they really cared about child deaths the Sun and the News of the Screws would be campaigning for 20mph speed limits in all towns and cities. *The unpleasant crowd of haters in the general public are just impotent morons trying to forget their own pathetic, miserable lives for a moment by focusing their own self-hatred outwards onto these easy targets*.



Yup. In a nutshell. It's the worst kind of fakery." Look at me. Look how righteous I am. I am so angry. Look look"


----------



## ymu (Mar 5, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> will self making some very cogent points on qt tonight.


Just watched it on iPlayer. He got masses of support from the audience too. No worse than a 50/5 split for sanity, I'd say. Hope that cheers dylans up a bit more.


----------



## STFC (Mar 5, 2010)

scooter said:


> Honestly don't understand all the strong feeling about this case - I mean above and beyond any other child murder case. As Self was intimating on QT, since they were kids when they committed the murder then they are less culpable than if an adult had done it not more culpable.
> 
> Why do the press (and apparently the general public) have such a hard on for hating them?



Mental, isn't it.

It's not like they did anything _that_ bad...


----------



## scifisam (Mar 5, 2010)

scooter said:


> Honestly don't understand all the strong feeling about this case - I mean above and beyond any other child murder case. As Self was intimating on QT, since they were kids when they committed the murder then they are less culpable than if an adult had done it not more culpable.
> 
> Why do the press (and apparently the general public) have such a hard on for hating them?



Because there is more horror in knowing that two little boys, at an age when we they are still relatively innocent and needing protection, were capable of doing such a thing. It's not as straightforward as the usual 'paedophile/psychopath adult murders child' stories, terrible though they may be. 

It's not just 'the haters' who find the case interesting, BTW. Just look at this thread.


----------



## treelover (Mar 5, 2010)

> It's not just 'the haters' who find the case interesting, BTW. Just look at this thread.



I think it may also be because many progressive people on here had hoped the undeniably humanistic concept of 'rehabilitation' would have worked and that it may have represented a 'victory' for enlightenment over baser feelings.That now it may have failed will I suspect have wider implications for UK social policy,etc,eg  Determinist right wing approaches to crime,etc.

I do think though, the needs and concerns of the Bulgers haven't been as prominent over the years as they should have been, have they had the support they needed?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 5, 2010)

treelover said:


> I think it may also be because many progressive people on here had hoped the undeniably humanistic concept of 'rehabilitation' would have worked and that it may have represented a 'victory' for enlightenment over baser feelings.That now it may have failed will I suspect have wider implications for UK social policy,etc,eg  Determinist right wing approaches to crime,etc.


What's failed? After nine years staying totally out of trouble, one of them may have got into a fight at work. Between them they've managed 18 years on the outside with just this one, very minor, brush with the law.

If only all prisoner releases were so successful. 

To my mind, the opposite conclusion should be drawn – that life-licences are not appropriate for these two, and that they should be allowed to get on with their lives in peace – and yes that may involve the odd brush with the law, as it does for many of us.


----------



## scooter (Mar 5, 2010)

> It's not like they did anything that bad...



No worse than any other murder. I've got a legal background, maybe I take a more dispassionate view of murder than other people.  



> Because there is more horror in knowing that two little boys, at an age when we they are still relatively innocent and needing protection, were capable of doing such a thing.



I don't see it like that. I see it as two little boys, at an age when we don't know right from wrong, did something that people might do when they don't know right from wrong.

It's worse if an adult does it because adults (should) know right from wrong.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 5, 2010)

BTW, I don't think the word 'rehabilitation' is appropriate in this case. They were children who were still developing, not fully formed adults.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 5, 2010)

scooter said:


> I don't see it like that. I see it as two little boys, at an age when we don't know right from wrong, did something that people might do when they don't know right from wrong.
> 
> It's worse if an adult does it because adults (should) know right from wrong.



I know some people are claiming that the boys were so badly abused that they didn't know right from wrong, but their age certainly isn't the reason for it. Ten year olds would know that torturing and murdering someone is wrong. 

Being only ten years old does make a difference to how they should be treated (IMO) and to the severity of their crime - kids that age shouldn't be held to the same standards of impulse control as adults, for example - but they knew what they did was _wrong_. Otherwise they wouldn't have tried to conceal their actions.

(I know that it's only in the teens that some higher brain functions to do with moral reasoning really come into their own, but younger children are still capable of sensing injustice and making some decisions about what's right and wrong, especially when it's something as unambigious as 'torture and murder.')


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 5, 2010)

Knowing that you'll get in trouble for what you did is a little different from 'knowing it is wrong'.

But everyone is speculating like mad here. It is possible, probable even, that they had no intention of killing him, that they were simply intent on torturing him – and many kids take pleasure from torturing other kids, unfortunately – and that they, or one of them, went too far.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It is _supposed to have been_ ... but it hasn't.
> 
> (And the prison service (and probation) are some of the worst at it - they simply do not connect the release of an offender with any sort of need to update the cops or anyone else who may need to do stuff outside their walls ... )



We (prisons dept) were nailing them on that even back in the early to mid 1990s, in the days when all they had to do was fax us, and we could disseminate the info to all agencies. Now they've even less excuse, because all it requires is a few keystrokes.
problem is, the POA are even worse than the PF for being stubborn about not introducing working practices that might mean they have to take some responsibility when things go wrong.


----------



## scooter (Mar 5, 2010)

Maybe after the event they knew it was something that adults would disapprove of and so hid it and maybe they did know it was wrong on some level but were carried away with the power trip at the time. I'm still not seeing the rationale behind all the excessive hatred.

I'm not saying that hatred isn't justified just that people seem to be holding more hatred for them than for any other murderer. Don't see why they warrant that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 5, 2010)

scifisam said:


> (I know that it's only in the teens that some higher brain functions to do with moral reasoning really come into their own, but younger children are still capable of sensing injustice and making some decisions about what's right and wrong, especially when it's something as unambigious as 'torture and murder.')


But how do you then judge such children when they do an appalling thing? You cannot judge them as you would a teenager or adult. I don't have a good answer to this question, except that once they do develop into adults, you have to reach a point where you say, ok, you are no longer the child who did this thing.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 5, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Knowing that you'll get in trouble for what you did is a little different from 'knowing it is wrong'.
> 
> But everyone is speculating like mad here. It is possible, probable even, that they had no intention of killing him, that they were simply intent on torturing him – and many kids take pleasure from torturing other kids, unfortunately – and that they, or one of them, went too far.



Yes. And it'd take a lot of evidence to persaude me that the vast majority of ten year olds don't know that doing that to someone is wrong, not just 'naughty.' Especially when it's a toddler and they're ten - that's not the kind of bullying most kids indulge in.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> afaik they both came from abusive or neglectful backgrounds



I had a skim through Blake Morrison's "As If..." this morning, as it gives a decent review of the evidence at the trial, and according to Morrison while Thompson was physically abused more seriously than Venables, Venables was indeed physically abused, as well as often being treated as a physical and mental "piggy-in-the-middle" by his warring parents.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 5, 2010)

Let us assume that they did know it was wrong, to the same extent that any 10 year old does (ie not in a fully formed moralistic way). So they were being naughty to the nth degree. Again I ask, how is anyone to judge such an act? Punishment of children of that age doesn't take the form of retribution, it has an aim to give children boundaries and help them to develop a moral compass. What I cannot understand is the desire for some for retribution against two young children, whatever they have done, including this.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 5, 2010)

scooter said:


> Maybe after the event they knew it was something that adults would disapprove of and so hid it and maybe they did know it was wrong on some level but were carried away with the power trip at the time. I'm still not seeing the rationale behind all the excessive hatred.
> 
> I'm not saying that hatred isn't justified just that people seem to be holding more hatred for them than for any other murderer. Don't see why they warrant that.


 
Nah. The few people that really hate these boys are full of hate for loads and loads of other criminals, suspected criminals, victims, ideas, and the world in general. 



littlebabyjesus said:


> But how do you then judge such children when they do an appalling thing? You cannot judge them as you would a teenager or adult. I don't have a good answer to this question, except that once they do develop into adults, you have to reach a point where you say, ok, you are no longer the child who did this thing.



Well, crimes this severe commited by children that young are fortunately very rare indeed, so there's no set procedure for how to treat the young criminals. They should be treated as individuals.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2010)

STFC said:


> Mental, isn't it.
> 
> It's not like they did anything _that_ bad...



Of course what they did was wrong, and hugely wrong, and they've paid the price for what they did.
What's "mental" is the bellowing of vengeful morons with no relation to the case, whose impetus is self-righteousness rather than a concern for justice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2010)

scooter said:


> No worse than any other murder. I've got a legal background...



We've probably all been nicked a time or two.


----------



## scooter (Mar 5, 2010)

well my internet cafe hour's up but certainly seems rum the way the tabloids are baying for blood


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> BTW, I don't think the word 'rehabilitation' is appropriate in this case. They were children who were still developing, not fully formed adults.



To be blunt, the word doesn't even suit what the criminal justice system attempts to do with adults, let alone child offenders, but it's a handy "short-hand" for "preparing people to attempt to reintegrate with society".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 5, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> To be blunt, the word doesn't even suit what the criminal justice system attempts to do with adults, let alone child offenders, but it's a handy "short-hand" for "preparing people to attempt to reintegrate with society".


In a sane system, which this is not, it would have a use. It would mean, simply, both helping those who have committed criminal acts to understand fully the impact of what they did and to provide them with the life skills they lack (in most cases) to enable them to build a life without crime. These two aims are linked – you can't do one without the other – combined, you would hope that you would produce someone who doesn't want to commit crimes, who sees their best future as a law-abiding one. 

First, of course, you need to end the absurd criminalisation of drug takers – without this first step, meaningful reform of the prison system is impossible.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2010)

scifisam said:


> I know some people are claiming that the boys were so badly abused that they didn't know right from wrong, but their age certainly isn't the reason for it. Ten year olds would know that torturing and murdering someone is wrong.
> 
> Being only ten years old does make a difference to how they should be treated (IMO) and to the severity of their crime - kids that age shouldn't be held to the same standards of impulse control as adults, for example - but they knew what they did was _wrong_. Otherwise they wouldn't have tried to conceal their actions.
> 
> (I know that it's only in the teens that some higher brain functions to do with moral reasoning really come into their own, but younger children are still capable of sensing injustice and making some decisions about what's right and wrong, especially when it's something as unambigious as 'torture and murder.')



I've always favoured the "things snowball" hypothesis with regard to this case. I think Thompson and Venables started off intending to play a cruel trick on a child and the child's mother, and once they were stopped and questioned by a member of the public, had to invent a story and then be seen to be sticking to it. Every step away from the shopping centre, every encounter with another adult "snowballed" into making returning inconceivable, until they'd trapped themselves and the child in a scenario that could only end violently.
I'm not excusing them, but it's not difficult to see how two kids, both viewed by their local educational psychologist as being "younger than their years" in terms of their reasoning skills, might have felt that the only escape from their predicament was to make their problem "disappear".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 5, 2010)

Yes, that makes sense, VP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2010)

scooter said:


> Maybe after the event they knew it was something that adults would disapprove of and so hid it and maybe they did know it was wrong on some level but were carried away with the power trip at the time. I'm still not seeing the rationale behind all the excessive hatred.
> 
> I'm not saying that hatred isn't justified just that people seem to be holding more hatred for them than for any other murderer. Don't see why they warrant that.



They don't warrant it, and the hate is at least partly the result of people being made to face the reality of life rather than their comfortable assumptions about it. Children aren't angels, as some people like to assume, they're *amoral* until they've been thoroughly educated into society's practices.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 5, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've always favoured the "things snowball" hypothesis with regard to this case. I think Thompson and Venables started off intending to play a cruel trick on a child and the child's mother, and once they were stopped and questioned by a member of the public, had to invent a story and then be seen to be sticking to it. Every step away from the shopping centre, every encounter with another adult "snowballed" into making returning inconceivable, until they'd trapped themselves and the child in a scenario that could only end violently.
> I'm not excusing them, but it's not difficult to see how two kids, both viewed by their local educational psychologist as being "younger than their years" in terms of their reasoning skills, might have felt that the only escape from their predicament was to make their problem "disappear".



That seems likely to me too. But, of course, you can say the same about some murders committed by adults.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 5, 2010)

Ironically, it could be their very sense of right and wrong – 'shit, we're in sooooo much trouble here for taking this kid' – that led them to kill him.

BTW Sam, regarding the earlier direction of this thread towards discussions of abuse and child development, that direction was dictated by the posts of the idiots – it was more a reaction to those idiots than a discussion of the particular case. Now the idiots aren't here, the discussion can take a more nuanced turn.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 5, 2010)

scooter said:


> well my internet cafe hour's up but certainly seems rum the way the tabloids are baying for blood


Someone else has already touched on the "righteous indignation" issue, which I think is a huge part of this. But I think, too, that you often see this kind of thing when sections of society which are supposed to be nice and fluffy yield people who do terrible things. The fury of the outrage against women abusers, like the recent case in Plymouth for example, is a case in point, as are situations where young people commit murders or other crimes.

It's as if the newspapers, so "shocked" at being blindsided by their own stereotypical views of what certain types of people are like, have to retaliate against the individual who's dared to shatter our illusions so brazenly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 5, 2010)

The tabloids effectively live in a medieval moral universe. They may not use the overtly religious language of the devil, but that is essentially their level of 'understanding'. It is as if the enlightenment never happened.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In a sane system, which this is not, it would have a use. It would mean, simply, both helping those who have committed criminal acts to understand fully the impact of what they did and to provide them with the life skills they lack (in most cases) to enable them to build a life without crime. These two aims are linked – you can't do one without the other – combined, you would hope that you would produce someone who doesn't want to commit crimes, who sees their best future as a law-abiding one.


I was making those same arguments 20+ years ago.
The problem is, and always will be, political. No politician wants to take responsibility for operationalising policies which might be seen as "soft on criminals", so instead we've been served this _melange_ of community crime prevention initiatives, a revamp (and indeed reiimagining) of the probation service and the quasi-criminalisation of "anti-social behaviour", in lieu of any meaningful attempt to provide education and skills that might make a difference. Addressing penality is a long-term measure, and politicians are only interested in short -term gain. 


> First, of course, you need to end the absurd criminalisation of drug takers – without this first step, meaningful reform of the prison system is impossible.


Which would free up between 20-30% (depending on the time of year) of low category prison capacity, free up resources better deployed elsewhere in the system, and shift the onus for treatment out of prison medical depts and into properly-equipped facilities.
Won't happen though, because it'd require politicians to admit that they'd got it wrong.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2010)

scifisam said:


> That seems likely to me too. But, of course, you can say the same about some murders committed by adults.



Of course.
Some adults, though, will have recourse to better reasoning skills than two 10-yr old boys, and so might be able to untangle themselves from such a situation better. At least, I'd hope so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 5, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Won't happen though, because it'd require politicians to admit that they'd got it wrong.


It won't happen first here. The UK and many other countries originally took their lead in the criminalisation of drug-takers from the US. The policy has reached such an extreme point in the US now, that I think it most likely that it will be reversed there first. The first concern of any government is the maintenance of order, and there could come a point in the US where the authorities consider that order cannot be maintained with the current drug policy – and this will outweigh the interests of those who are profiting from prohibition who currently have the government's ear. As soon as the US changes tack on drugs, the UK will follow instantly.

For similar reasons, I can see, eventually, capitalism falling first in the US as a critical mass of ordinary people come to realise that they're being fucked over by the system.


Also, in addition to simply resulting in fewer people being sent to prison and fewer people committing crimes to fund their habits, decriminalising drug-taking would rationalise the law, taking away crimes with no victims. Respect for the law in general is done a huge amount of harm by the existence of clearly unjust laws.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 5, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've always favoured the "things snowball" hypothesis with regard to this case.


I can quite understand how the hole they were digging got deeper and deeper, and how one lie led to another, taking them to a place they didn't set out to go to ... but what evidence do you have for the almost entirely innocent starting point (little more than an off the cuff game of hide and seek)?


----------



## tommers (Mar 5, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I can quite understand how the hole they were digging got deeper and deeper, and how one lie led to another, taking them to a place they didn't set out to go to ... but what evidence do you have for the almost entirely innocent starting point (little more than an off the cuff game of hide and seek)?



Wiki (sourced to some local paper, which refers to police reports) reckons they planned to get a child to push in front of a car to cause an accident.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 5, 2010)

tommers said:


> Wiki (sourced to some local paper, which refers to police reports) reckons they planned to get a child to push in front of a car to cause an accident.


I thought I remembered something like that from the reports at the time.  I was wondering how ViolentPanda came to suggest a far more innocent initial explanation.


----------



## STFC (Mar 5, 2010)

scooter said:


> No worse than any other murder. I've got a legal background, maybe I take a more dispassionate view of murder than other people.
> 
> I don't see it like that. I see it as two little boys, at an age when we don't know right from wrong, did something that people might do when they don't know right from wrong.
> 
> It's worse if an adult does it because adults (should) know right from wrong.



So you don't think there's anything at all unusual about this case?

If, as you say, 10 year olds don't know that abducting, torturing and murdering a younger child is wrong, why doesn't it happen more frequently?


----------



## ymu (Mar 5, 2010)

scifisam said:


> That seems likely to me too. But, of course, you can say the same about some murders committed by adults.


Of course. But, as Will Self pointed out, their being children at the time does not make them _more_ evil than an adult who does the same thing - surely the reverse - but that's what the public reaction seems to imply.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It won't happen first here. The UK and many other countries originally took their lead in the criminalisation of drug-takers from the US. The policy has reached such an extreme point in the US now, that I think it most likely that it will be reversed there first. The first concern of any government is the maintenance of order, and there could come a point in the US where the authorities consider that order cannot be maintained with the current drug policy – and this will outweigh the interests of those who are profiting from prohibition who currently have the government's ear. As soon as the US changes tack on drugs, the UK will follow instantly.


Policy research is seeing some fairly compelling data toward favouring decriminalisation of lower-category drugs *use* coming out of Australia (and that in spite of the UN and US attempts to hole the experiment below the waterline before it even began).


> For similar reasons, I can see, eventually, capitalism falling first in the US as a critical mass of ordinary people come to realise that they're being fucked over by the system.


I'm not quite as sanguine as you. My own worry is that *ongoing failure[/i] will cause:
a) The fracture of society into clear geographical and social divisions, with "safe zones" (for the monied) and "danger zones" (for the rest of us), 
and/or
b) The overt takeover of federal and state control functions by religious whack-jobs. 




			Also, in addition to simply resulting in fewer people being sent to prison and fewer people committing crimes to fund their habits, decriminalising drug-taking would rationalise the law, taking away crimes with no victims. Respect for the law in general is done a huge amount of harm by the existence of clearly unjust laws.
		
Click to expand...

Of course, but that's modern politics. It's about the surface, not what lies beneath it.*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I can quite understand how the hole they were digging got deeper and deeper, and how one lie led to another, taking them to a place they didn't set out to go to ... but what evidence do you have for the almost entirely innocent starting point (little more than an off the cuff game of hide and seek)?



I don't believe they were going to have an innocent game of hide-and-seek. I *believe* that they probably intended, maliciously, in the way unthinking kids *are* malicious, to desert James Bulger within minutes of taking him, probably leaving him crying and his mother frantic.


----------



## tommers (Mar 5, 2010)

ymu said:


> Of course. But, as Will Self pointed out, their being children at the time does not make them _more_ evil than an adult who does the same thing - surely the reverse - but that's what the public reaction seems to imply.



My take on it is that this crime pushes a lot of buttons.  Speaking personally, I certainly registered it when it happened but I never read up on it or looked into it particularly.  Now, I have a small son and the thought of this happening to him horrifies me and I find myself reading accounts of what happened.

These crimes are so rare that they are genuinely shocking.  I think people find it hard to understand how children could do this to another child.  It pulls on all the strings that we have concerning children, our beliefs about them, our urge to protect them, our collective guilt that we would probably have been one of the 38 that walked on by.

If adults kill or torture children it usually makes a big story - look at Baby P, Victoria Climbie and the Soham murders.  If a child kills another child, well..... look at the recent case in Doncaster.

I think people look at cases like this and think "if they're capable of that when they're that age then what will they be capable of when they're adults?"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 5, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I thought I remembered something like that from the reports at the time.  I was wondering how ViolentPanda came to suggest a far more innocent initial explanation.



Because although the "pushed in front of a car" story came from the police, it was never clear whether this was a fact related by both detainees, or whether it was (as happened increasingly during their questioning) one placing the blame on the other, and Venables' claim of Thompson saying "let's get him lost" *before* the "let's get him run over" claim.


----------



## Harold Hill (Mar 5, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> The press love it because it sells newspapers. If they really cared about child deaths the Sun and the News of the Screws would be campaigning for 20mph speed limits in all towns and cities. The unpleasant crowd of haters in the general public are just impotent morons trying to forget their own pathetic, miserable lives for a moment by focusing their own self-hatred outwards onto these easy targets.



You don't see a pinch of hypocrisy there?


----------



## Harold Hill (Mar 5, 2010)

scooter said:


> well my internet cafe hour's up but certainly seems rum the way the tabloids are baying for blood



Is anyone actually baying for blood?  I'm sure plenty of the public at large would hang them tomorrow and people here will say tha nature of the reporting is to satisfy a witch hunt.  But it hasn't been what I thought it would be.

The nub seems to be with the 'right to know' rather than justice.


----------



## STFC (Mar 5, 2010)

tommers said:


> My take on it is that this crime pushes a lot of buttons.  Speaking personally, I certainly registered it when it happened but I never read up on it or looked into it particularly.  Now, I have a small son and the thought of this happening to him horrifies me and I find myself reading accounts of what happened.
> 
> These crimes are so rare that they are genuinely shocking.  I think people find it hard to understand how children could do this to another child.  It pulls on all the strings that we have concerning children, our beliefs about them, our urge to protect them, our collective guilt that we would probably have been one of the 38 that walked on by.
> 
> ...



I agree with everything you've said there.

Luckily the recent case in Doncaster didn't end in a fatality, although it could easily have. That apart, I can't think of another case quite like the murder of Jamie Bulger. Mary Bell perhaps?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 5, 2010)

Harold Hill said:


> You don't see a pinch of hypocrisy there?



No, I genuinely believe that.


----------



## Harold Hill (Mar 5, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> No, I genuinely believe that.



It's another 'easy target' though isn't it.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 5, 2010)

> It's another 'easy target' though isn't it.



Agree but are you telling me there aren't loads of hypocritical fuckers out there who can't wait to judge others but don't like it when the focus turns on them. Loads of people treat others like shit but feel they can comment on everything as though they were holier than.



> These crimes are so rare that they are genuinely shocking.



Are they that rare? Millions are butchered, tortured and raped every year. Mostly with the backing of governments and states. This includes children and child soldiers. But the tabloids don't spend too much time talking about those shocking incidents as their owners are part of the same system that carries it out.

Also the ruling classes in many countries are still happy to send children down mines and into factories and it wasn't even that long ago in this country.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 5, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Are they that rare? Millions are butchered, tortured and raped every year. Mostly with the backing of governments and states. This includes children and child soldiers. But the tabloids don't spend too much time talking about those shocking incidents as their owners are part of the same system that carries it out.
> 
> Also the ruling classes in many countries are still happy to send children down mines and into factories and it wasn't even that long ago in this country.



Well, yeah, if you move the goalposts so far that you're including war and child labour - from around the world and long in the past - then it's not going to seem rare. But _children murdering other children_ is very rare indeed.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 5, 2010)

> Well, yeah, if you move the goalposts so far that you're including war and child labour - from around the world and long in the past - then it's not going to seem rare. But children murdering other children is very rare indeed.



Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children



> Peter W. Singer of the Brookings Institution estimated in January 2003 that child soldiers participate in about three quarters of all the ongoing conflicts in the world.[





> In over twenty countries around the world, children are direct participants in war. Denied a childhood and often subjected to horrific violence, an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 children are serving as soldiers for both rebel groups and government forces in current armed conflicts.



So not that rare at all.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 5, 2010)

In fact reading that more it seems the UK government has sent child soldiers out to Iraq.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 5, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Really?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children
> 
> ...



You're taking the piss, right?


----------



## dylans (Mar 5, 2010)

This is pretty fucked up too



> The United States has detained minors during their War on Terror. Omar Khadr, a 15 year old Canadian citizen, arrested in Afghanistan in 2002, and held at Guantanamo for the past five years was to have been one of the first detainees to be charged before a military commission. Human Rights Watch charges that, "the US government incarcerated him with adults, reportedly subjected him to abusive interrogations, failed to provide him any educational opportunities, and denied him any direct contact with his family."[57] In 2004, three Afghan children were released from Guantanamo, believed to be between the ages of 13 and 15 at the time of their capture, to rehabilitation programs operated by UNICEF in Afghanistan.[citation needed]


----------



## scifisam (Mar 5, 2010)

It is terrible that children are made into soldiers (I don't think the UK does send children into combat, FWIW), but it's a very, very different matter to children, who are not at war, choosing to murder other children. The latter is extremely rare.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 5, 2010)

> It is terrible that children are made into soldiers (I don't think the UK does send children into combat, FWIW)



Wrong, follow the link.

And why, just because the child on child murder is sanctioned by a government, state or army is it "you're taking the piss". What is the difference? In fact the state doing it is worse. But no front pages funnily enough.


----------



## dylans (Mar 5, 2010)

scifisam said:


> It is terrible that children are made into soldiers *(I don't think the UK does send children into combat, FWIW),* but it's a very, very different matter to children, who are not at war, choosing to murder other children. The latter is extremely rare.



Are you sure about that?



> between June 2003 and July 2005, the British government inadvertently sent fifteen 17-year-old soldiers to Iraq, explaining the mistake as due to "the pressures on units prior to deployment".[51]


----------



## scifisam (Mar 5, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Wrong, follow the link.
> 
> And why, just because the child murder is sanctioned by a government, state or army is it "you're taking the piss". What is the difference? In fact the state doing it is worse. But no front pages funnily enough.



I'm not saying it's necessarily worse. It is _more unusual_. Unusual events make the news more than ones that aren't unusual. 



dylans said:


> Are you sure about that?



Yes. 15 17-year-olds got briefly sent out by mistake. 

Quite what that has to do with two ten year old boys murdering a toddler, I'm not sure. 

I can't believe I'm defending the fact that children murdering other children is rare. Yup, again, if you say anything on urban, anything at all, some argumentative bugger will come along and disagree with it. Even if it means stretching the terms 'children' 'murder' and 'rare' so far that they're at breaking point.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 5, 2010)

> I'm not saying it's necessarily worse. It is more unusual. Unusual events make the news more than ones that aren't unusual.



Yet it's never news worthy, certainly not in the tabloids. And as newspapers can, to some extent form opinion, they don't try and get outrage against the abuse of children in the millions, often indirectly backed by the UK establishment, they focus on individuals. I wonder why.

Look at the Sun. It's run by the ruling classes and written by poncey middle class journalists who patronise us by writing in style they see as a working class. Makes me sick to be honest.



> Quite what that has to do with two ten year old boys murdering a toddler, I'm not sure.



Well it shows the government outrage up to be a load of hypocritical shit when they're prepared to send children into a war zone.

It also shows that children murdering other children (or other adults) isn't rare, it's often sanctioned by the establishment.


----------



## skevin (Mar 5, 2010)

This was a terrible, terrible crime commited by two warped kids but i can slightly (only slightly) understand it. I think some boys around this age can have a sadistic streak in them. For example i remember being about 8-9 and with my friend we caught a large koi carp in his parents pond. Just 'to see what would happen' we proceeded to brick this poor fish to death. I feel bad when i think about it. I've heard stories similar to this from other people when they were that age.

I think its the same (but obviously much more extreme) sadistic curiousity that made these kids murder James.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 5, 2010)

Harold Hill said:


> It's another 'easy target' though isn't it.



Like racists are an easy target. But I reserve my right to pass my own judgement on them.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 5, 2010)

One_Stop_Shop said:


> Yet it's never news worthy, certainly not in the tabloids. And as newspapers can, to some extent form opinion, they don't try and get outrage against the abuse of children in the millions, often indirectly backed by the UK establishment, they focus on individuals. I wonder why.
> 
> Look at the Sun. It's run by the ruling classes and written by poncey middle class journalists who patronise us by writing in style they see as a working class. Makes me sick to be honest.
> 
> ...



It doesn't show any of those things, I'm afraid. There simply are too many differences between the two for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn. Well, apart from tabloids being patronising and politicians being hypocrites, which you can get evidence of practically every time they do anything at all.


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Mar 5, 2010)

> It doesn't show any of those things, I'm afraid. There simply are too many differences between the two for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn. Well, apart from tabloids being patronising and politicians being hypocrites, which you can get evidence of practically every time they do anything at all.
> Reply With Quote



Not sure but I think you're missing my point. Not saying there are exact comparisons. What I'm trying to say is that the establishment using child vs child killers or child vs adult killers is hardly mentioned but one off cases are all over the front pages. Yet the former is worse than the other. My point is that the the state/establishment doing it is far worse yet no-one is asked to show any outrage by the tabloids.


----------



## Pingu (Mar 6, 2010)

back inside because of an allegation of a "serious sexual offence" according to radio4 this morning


eta

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8553056.stm


----------



## weltweit (Mar 6, 2010)

Pingu said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8553056.stm



So the BBC is re-reporting what the Sun has reported. 

Can we trust that?


----------



## Pingu (Mar 6, 2010)

weltweit said:


> So the BBC is re-reporting what the Sun has reported.
> 
> Can we trust that?


 

dunno

i am just reporting that the bbc are reporting what the sun, sorry scum, are saying they have been told.

we may never know


----------



## salem (Mar 6, 2010)

weltweit said:


> So the BBC is re-reporting what the Sun has reported.
> 
> Can we trust that?



Well it also states that Jack Straw referred to the alleged offence as "extremely serious allegations" which does narrow things down IMHO.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 6, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've always favoured the "things snowball" hypothesis with regard to this case.



Hmmm my understanding was that police reports had said that the two boys had admitted in custody to going looking for a child that they could push out in front of the traffic. So I'm not too sure that there motives started as innocent and got out of control - though I wouldnt be surprised if there was an element of that.

e2a: sorry, looking back i see tommers has already noted this.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 6, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I *believe* ...


What is the basis for your belief though?  Does your use of emphasis mean that you have absolutely no evidence for it?

(ETA: Do you have a link to the reports of the accounts the two gave on interview, from which it appears the losing him and pushing him under a car bits come?)


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 6, 2010)

Pingu said:


> we may never know


Indeed ... not least because it is becoming increasingly clear that a significant new offence is suspected and is being investigated.  If the scum media carry on with their fuckwittery it will be fucking impossible for any fair trial to be carried out and so the matter may never be resolved and, if acquitted, he is more likely to be released again on licence sooner; the alleged victim will not get any justice and future potential victims will not be as protected as they could be.

The tossers have already cost us over £250k because, come what may, he will now need another new identity ... 

Absolute fucking cunts.  And just because they are too fucking infantile to exercise some patience whilst things take their proper course.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 6, 2010)

...all i could see were uncited policed reports on wikipedia page, best to be cautious about taking it as fact.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 6, 2010)

When considering this whole thing its probably just as important to think about the systemic failures that occured to facilitate these two children to ever be in a position where they could act upon their intentions. Its not unusual for people to fantasise about violent acts, in adults they usually have the personality structures to keep this at the level of fleeting thoughts, whereas in children its important that their are structures in their enviroment around them to contain any of these urges. Going back to 'normal' development again (sorry) its the internalisation of these external constraints that, once taken in, help us to mediate / modulate our own actions. Anyhows, clearly when we're attributing blame (if thats even a useful concept, probably not) its important to think of this holistically and not to be locating this purely within the two boys themselves.


----------



## dylans (Mar 6, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Indeed ... not least because it is becoming increasingly clear that a significant new offence is suspected and is being investigated.  If the scum media carry on with their fuckwittery it will be fucking impossible for any fair trial to be carried out and so the matter may never be resolved and, if acquitted, he is more likely to be released again on licence sooner; the alleged victim will not get any justice and future potential victims will not be as protected as they could be.
> 
> The tossers have already cost us over £250k because, come what may, he will now need another new identity ...
> 
> Absolute fucking cunts.  And just because they are too fucking infantile to exercise some patience whilst things take their proper course.



Yup. This whole thing is grubby as fuck. Absolutely shameful


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 6, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> What is the basis for your belief though?  Does your use of emphasis mean that you have absolutely no evidence for it?
> 
> (ETA: Do you have a link to the reports of the accounts the two gave on interview, from which it appears the losing him and pushing him under a car bits come?)



As I said, I'm going by accounts given by authors who reviewed the statements, not from accounts with hyperlinks.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 6, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I said, I'm going by accounts given by authors who reviewed the statements, not from accounts with hyperlinks.


Is there no reference at all to these accounts (or the authors) on the web?  Nothing to give any indication of their level of access to original material, or their background?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 6, 2010)

Released lifer alledged to have re-offended and is taken back inside. There are some associated issue, but most of the coverage is is froth, and fuck me but there's lots of it. that's because people find murder fascinating, especially murder of kids. It's weird.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Mar 6, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> that's because people find murder fascinating, especially murder of kids. It's weird.


  The murder of kids by other kids, the distinction being the age groups involved.


----------



## Lakina (Mar 6, 2010)

There must be 1000s of people who know what he's done and which prison he is in.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 6, 2010)

Am I the only person in the world that doesn't know what they did to him? I couldn't bear to read the reports. 

There was a really interesting interview with Venables' lawyer on Saturday Live this morning. He was saying that although Venables was massively remorseful for what he'd done that the impact on his life is so immense that he's not surprised he's reoffended


----------



## scifisam (Mar 6, 2010)

@OneStopShop: I do kinda understand your point, and I do agree that governments sending kids to war is worse (though I'm really not sure accidental, brief sending of 17-year-olds counts for much other than demonstrating how bloody inept they are). But the thing is, while bad, it's _not unusual_. That's probably one of the worst things about it. 

I don't think you'd find many people disagreeing that it's bad to send children out to war. And we all know it happens in some countries. Mostly countries that the average person doesn't know about, for reasons that most people don't have direct experience of. There's not much discussion to be had there. 

Whereas most readers of the Sun have been ten year old in Britain and know kids that age, so they can relate to the story more - and, again, a crime this extreme commited by kids so young is just so unusual; it's noteworthy. 



trashpony said:


> Am I the only person in the world that doesn't know what they did to him? I couldn't bear to read the reports.
> 
> There was a really interesting interview with Venables' lawyer on Saturday Live this morning. He was saying that although Venables was massively remorseful for what he'd done that the impact on his life is so immense that he's not surprised he's reoffended



I do hope he's not Venables' current lawyer, since he seems to be assuming that the allegations are definitely true.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 6, 2010)

scifisam said:


> I do hope he's not Venables' current lawyer, since he seems to be assuming that the allegations are definitely true.



Of course not, he was just the duty solicitor called to defend him.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 6, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Of course not, he was just the duty solicitor called to defend him.



Glad to hear it. Yah, I suppose his current lawyer wouldn't be making comments. Really, though, his old lawyer shouldn't be making comments like that either. He should know better.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 6, 2010)

scifisam said:


> Glad to hear it. Yah, I suppose his current lawyer wouldn't be making comments. Really, though, his old lawyer shouldn't be making comments like that either. He should know better.



I probably didn't explain myself very well - he didn't say that he must have done it, he was talking about the massive long term implications for everyone that was closely involved at the time - the victim's family, the perpetrators, the police and lawyers. He is furious that the judge revealed their names - do you remember, for a long time they were Boy A and Boy B.

Hearing him describe the baying mob throwing bricks at Venables and Thompson as they came into court made my blood run cold.


----------



## skevin (Mar 6, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Hearing him describe the baying mob throwing bricks at Venables and Thompson as they came into court made my blood run cold.



Why? Those two little shits like throwing bricks. At toddlers.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> Why? Those two little shits like throwing bricks. At toddlers.



2 wrongs make a right. I think Ghandi said that.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> Why? Those two little shits like throwing bricks. At toddlers.



And that makes it OK for other people - people setting themselves up in judgement on others - to do EXACTLY the same thing?


----------



## killer b (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> Why? Those two little shits like throwing bricks. At toddlers.


do you think lynch mobs are the appropriate way of meting out justice?


----------



## dylans (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> Why? Those two little shits like throwing bricks. At toddlers.



That mob, baying for the blood of two ten year old children, was one of the ugliest things I've ever seen.  Fucking animals. 

Your comment is a disgrace and you should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 6, 2010)

It would not surprise me if the newspapers already know his new identity and the cause of his being taken back inside. They are probably taking stock as to whether they can publish or not. 

Either way, his identity will have been compromised.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 6, 2010)

weltweit said:


> It would not surprise me if the newspapers already know his new identity and the cause of his being taken back inside. They are probably taking stock as to whether they can publish or not.


There was some fuckwit from one of the tabloids (Sun I think) on the News earlier saying they knew exactly who he is and what he has done.  He was outraged that all they were able to say was that he was suspected of a "serious sexual offence".

Apparently the Attorney-Generals office has injuncted them - clearly the concern _is_ that a future trial may be prejudiced (a couple of politicians have comented to that effect too).

How the _fuck_ the Scum think that they should have the right to prejudice a fair trial in a serious criminal case just because they want to publish all the salacious details they can and wind up a fucking lynch mob I just don't know.  I hate them more and more every single fucking day ...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 6, 2010)

dylans said:


> That mob, baying for the blood of two ten year old children, was one of the ugliest things I've ever seen.


I actually found that frightening. It wasn't long after that I ditched my TV. It made me despair far more about the human race than the ghastly knowledge that there are children who are so failed by the adults around them that they are damaged enough to do what they did to James Bulger.


----------



## skevin (Mar 6, 2010)

dylans said:


> That mob, baying for the blood of two ten year old children, was one of the ugliest things I've ever seen.  Fucking animals.
> 
> Your comment is a disgrace and you should be ashamed of yourself.




No, do-gooders like you are a disgrace. If you want to see something really ugly i suggest you try and imagine the state poor James was in by the end of that day.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> No, do-gooders like you are a disgrace. If you want to see something really ugly i suggest you try and imagine the state poor James was in by the end of that day.


----------



## dylans (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> No, do-gooders like you are a disgrace. If you want to see something really ugly i suggest you try and imagine the state poor James was in by the end of that day.



I have nothing further to say to you. You disgust me. 

Have a nice evening


----------



## skevin (Mar 6, 2010)

That 'mob' reaction was entirely natural. Want to know why? Because it helps cleanse the gene pool of fucking monsters like Venables and Thompson. Anyway i've said my piece.


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> That 'mob' reaction was entirely natural. Want to know why? Because it helps cleanse the gene pool of fucking monsters like Venables and Thompson. Anyway i've said my piece.



Welcome to the internets


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> That 'mob' reaction was entirely natural. Want to know why? Because it helps cleanse the gene pool of fucking monsters like Venables and Thompson. Anyway i've said my piece.



oh fuck off


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 6, 2010)




----------



## paulhackett (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> That 'mob' reaction was entirely natural. Want to know why? Because it helps cleanse the gene pool of fucking monsters like Venables and Thompson. Anyway i've said my piece.



It may have been more effective if those weren't 'decoy' vans sent out of the court. Venables and Thompson exited elsewhere, so the chances of the local community cleansing itself by throwing objects at empty vans were slim..


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> That 'mob' reaction was entirely natural. Want to know why? Because it helps cleanse the gene pool of fucking monsters like Venables and Thompson. Anyway i've said my piece.


I think a zero tolerance approach to "mob" reactions should be taken ... it'd help cleanse the gene pool of thicko vigilante cunts like you ... 

(You are a Sun journo and I claim my £5, by the way ...)


----------



## skevin (Mar 6, 2010)

paulhackett66 said:


> It may have been more effective if those weren't 'decoy' vans sent out of the court. Venables and Thompson exited elsewhere, so the chances of the local community cleansing itself by throwing objects at empty vans were slim..



Yes, the sick liberal establishment protects them. Just like Sutcliffe, Brady, Huntley and Carr. Most people support the re-introduction of the death penalty but we are denied it by a small degenerate elite that think they know best. Natural justice is not served anymore.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> No, do-gooders like you are a disgrace. If you want to see something really ugly i suggest you try and imagine the state poor James was in by the end of that day.



Why, is that what YOU do when you want to work yourself up into a self-righteous frenzy?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> Yes, the sick liberal establishment protects them. Just like Sutcliffe, Brady, Huntley and Carr. Most people support the re-introduction of the death penalty but we are denied it by a small degenerate elite that think they know best. Natural justice is not served anymore.



your first post on this thread is interesting



skevin said:


> This was a terrible, terrible crime commited by two warped kids but i can slightly (only slightly) understand it. I think some boys around this age can have a sadistic streak in them. For example i remember being about 8-9 and with my friend we caught a large koi carp in his parents pond. Just 'to see what would happen' we proceeded to brick this poor fish to death. I feel bad when i think about it. I've heard stories similar to this from other people when they were that age.
> 
> I think its the same (but obviously much more extreme) sadistic curiousity that made these kids murder James.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> Yes, the sick liberal establishment protects them. Just like Sutcliffe, Brady, Huntley and Carr. Most people support the re-introduction of the death penalty but we are denied it by a small degenerate elite that think they know best. Natural justice is not served anymore.



So how would you recompense paediatricians attacked by anti paedophile mobs then? if they had been "bricked" like the bulger boys or had natural justice meeted out to them?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 6, 2010)

Ah, I'd not connected those two posts, Blagsta.....
Either he's pissed or just _*conflicted*_.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 6, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Ah, I'd not connected those two posts, Blagsta.....
> Either he's pissed or just _*conflicted*_.



guilty conscience I reckon


----------



## skevin (Mar 6, 2010)

No, i just changed my mind after a watched a documentary on it.


----------



## killer b (Mar 6, 2010)

weltweit said:


> So how would you recompense paediatricians attacked by anti paedophile mobs then? if they had been "bricked" like the bulger boys or had natural justice meeted out to them?


stick to actual facts please? made up nonce-sense of any kind only makes your argument weaker...


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> No, i just changed my mind after a watched a documentary on it.



you sound like a dodgy psycho to me


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2010)

the paediatrician lynch mob thing was a myth.


----------



## paulhackett (Mar 6, 2010)

killer b said:


> stick to actual facts please? made up nonce-sense of any kind only makes your argument weaker...




http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society

There you go.. 



> Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile", it emerged yesterday.
> Dr Yvette Cloete, a specialist registrar in paediatric medicine at the Royal Gwent hospital in Newport, was forced to flee her house after vandals daubed it with graffiti in the middle of the night.
> 
> The word "paedo" was written across the front porch and door of the house she shared with her brother in the village of St Brides, south Wales.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 6, 2010)

...


----------



## skevin (Mar 6, 2010)

Actually i've got BPD. I'm not a psycho.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> Actually i've got BDP. I'm not a psycho.



It's likely that Venables and Thompson had a PD also y'know.


----------



## killer b (Mar 6, 2010)

paulhackett66 said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society
> 
> There you go..


self styled vigilantes, or teenage vandals? i think it's a stretch to assume it's the first. either way it's a shit example - there's plenty of horrible tales of anti-paedo mobs you could roll out before having to resort to the paediatrician story...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 6, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> the paediatrician lynch mob thing was a myth.


 The lynch mob thing is a myth, but she was targetted....




			
				BBC said:
			
		

> In August 2000, a female paediatrician consultant called Yvette Cloete was indeed labelled a "paedo" after a campaign by the News of the World to name and shame paedophiles in the community.
> 
> The incident took place in Newport, Gwent, not in Portsmouth (where there had been anti-paedophile protests after eight-year-old Sarah Payne was murdered) or London.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2010)

paulhackett66 said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society
> 
> There you go..



Nope



> "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story?" says Chief Inspector Andrew Adams, of Gwent Police, who was the liaison officer in charge when news of this incident broke six years ago. He remembers very well that stressful night, when he gave 18 live interviews to various media outlets.
> 
> "There was no big mob," he says. "Nothing like that happened. I know because I was there and I was involved. The lady was not in her home when it happened. She came home from work to see her door daubed with anti-paedophile graffiti.
> 
> "When we heard about it we set about dispelling the rumours that she or anyone else in that house was a paedophile. We explained to the local community the difference between paediatrician and paedophile."


----------



## weltweit (Mar 6, 2010)

It is irrelevant. 

The point is skevin was promoting teh idea of death penalty and "natural justice" whatever that is. 

My point is there are no pardons for people who have been executed. There is no going back.


----------



## paulhackett (Mar 6, 2010)

killer b said:


> self styled vigilantes, or teenage vandals? i think it's a stretch to assume it's the first. either way it's a shit example - there's plenty of horrible tales of anti-paedo mobs you could roll out before having to resort to the paediatrician story...



It was the quickest example of the paediatrician story.. I didn't actually add comment, simply added the link..


----------



## killer b (Mar 6, 2010)

weltweit said:


> The point is skevin was promoting teh idea of death penalty and "natural justice" whatever that is.
> 
> My point is there are no pardons for people who have been executed. There is no going back.


well, yeah. tbf i think he's trolling... whether he is or not, it's not really worth a reply.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> No, i just changed my mind after a watched a documentary on it.



In between those two posts?


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 6, 2010)

skevin said:


> Yes, the sick liberal establishment protects them. Just like Sutcliffe, Brady, Huntley and Carr. Most people support the re-introduction of the death penalty but we are denied it by a small degenerate elite that think they know best. Natural justice is not served anymore.



I thought you'd said your bit and were due to fuck off?


----------



## tombowler (Mar 7, 2010)

nice to see one paper not baying for blood and writing what to me is the most informative article about venables so for 


little bit copied here

"The 27-year-old's mental state had become so fragile that he would regularly reveal his identity to strangers – something that had put him at risk of attack."

edited to add link to shocking daily wail article that also shows compassion.. can not belive i just agreed with one of their articles


----------



## Lakina (Mar 7, 2010)

He is a nonce


----------



## Jonti (Mar 7, 2010)

> shockingly abused child turns into a wrong 'un ~ nation acts all surprised


But it's no real surprise, is it?


----------



## tombowler (Mar 7, 2010)

Lakina said:


> He is a nonce



 and i would reason based on your amazing powers of deduction displayed here that you are a person fundamentally lacking in intelligence 


or to put in in language you can understand you are a 

twat


----------



## killer b (Mar 7, 2010)

tombowler said:


> edited to add link to shocking daily wail article that also shows compassion.. can not belive i just agreed with one of their articles


suzanne moore is their liberal fig-leaf. ex grauniad collumnist...


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 7, 2010)

It'd be more surprising if he hadn't turned into a nutter, given the guilt he must live with.

Although Thompson seems to be alright--in a steady gay relationship apparently.


----------



## tombowler (Mar 7, 2010)

the pressure to live pretending to be someone else must be unbearable, I can fully see why someone would want to confess.

The other issue not really explored is loneliness, just think about it for a moment you have lived since you are ten in an environment where there are always people to talk to 24/7 night staff are awake and will talk to you. you are never alone. but you do not have any stable relationships as staff come and go and after all they are staff not family who will be around to support you later in life.  

At 17 or 18 you are sent off to a grubby rented flat or house the support is a few hours a week often by phone from people who did not know you before and who have no relationship to you often they are not there when you call or forget to call when they should. you look for love in the wrong places get used exploited or you are the exploiter

You have jumped from 24 hour care to no care at all. where do you look for comfort drink, drugs, you may find work but it is often low paid menial work that just gets you more frustrated.

You crave that safe controlled environment where you were never lonely, offending is they way back BUT you end up in jail in stead nothing like the care you had before with even less support when you come out.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 7, 2010)

tombowler said:


> the pressure to live pretending to be someone else must be unbearable, I can fully see why someone would want to confess.
> 
> The other issue not really explored is loneliness, just think about it for a moment you have lived since you are ten in an environment where there are always people to talk to 24/7 night staff are awake and will talk to you. you are never alone. but you do not have any stable relationships as staff come and go and after all they are staff not family who will be around to support you later in life.
> 
> ...



That's the same for a lot of kids who grow up in care too - once they reach 16, they are shoved in a flat and the state washes their hands of them


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 7, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Although Thompson seems to be alright--in a steady gay relationship apparently.


Oh dear ... 

That'll probably put him on skevin and Lakina's list then ...


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 7, 2010)

trashpony said:


> That's the same for a lot of kids who grow up in care too - once they reach 16, they are shoved in a flat and the state washes their hands of them


I know several and one really worrying (and very sad) common factor is the sudden loss of any caring relationship they have had with the care worker(s).  How this happens seems to vary: at the extreme one very close, pseudo-parental relationship was just ended abruptly by the care worker who just said "It's not my job any more, you're out of here" (not _quite_ in so many words, but not far off) which left the young person absolutely adrift; at the other end of the scale I know of one care worker who maintained (and still does, years later) a high-level of contact and availability (despite being told not to by their bosses because it wasn't their job any more, not because of any inappropriateness), sort of like a parent / child relationship when the latter has left home.  Most were somewhere in between (but significantly closer to the first situation!).

Bearing in mind that this happens at 16/17/18 when most kids worlds are turning upside down anyway, I think it is something that needs more careful addressing.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 7, 2010)

Looks like the Sunday Mirror is the one who has decided to fuck with the system:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...ison-over-child-porn-offence-115875-22090622/

They were the ones who fucked up the Leeds footballer "racist" assault case a few years ago and they got let off.  The Attorney-General should intervene immediately if they are in breach of the injunction (or under the general concept of _sub judice_ even if they have managed to avoid the exact wording of the injunction).  

Jack Straw (quoted by the tossers in their own fucking article) says:



> “I said on Wednesday that I was unable to give further details of the reasons for Jon Venables’ return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so.
> 
> “That view was shared by the police and the DPP. We all feared a premature disclosure of *information would under*mine the integrity of the criminal justice process.
> 
> “Our motivation throughout has been solely to ensure that some extremely serious allegations are properly investigated and that justice is done. No one in this country would want anything other. That is what the *authorities remain *determined to do.”



They have totally and utterly ignored that perfectly reasonable and sensible explanation, and the law behind it, with an absolutely blatant two fingers:  "We understand what you want, and why.  And we understand why the law is there.  But we think it's bollocks and we have scandals to write about and a paper to sell.  Roll those presses boys ..."

If found to be in contempt of court (which appears obvious) they should be absolutely slaughtered.  The paper should receive a swingeing fine and the editor and other decision making executives jailed.  _Pour encourager les autres_.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 7, 2010)

If I were Venables I'm sure there would be stages in life when I'd feel adrift, anchorless. Especially but not only in relation to not being able to go anywhere near my home town, school, etc. 

I can't help but think in years and decades to come what happened to Venables and Thomson after their release will become a case study - mainly in terms of lessons that needed to be learned.


----------



## dylans (Mar 7, 2010)

> The reason for Venables’ recall was kept secret by the Government but we can exclusively reveal



Big of them 


> The boys were never properly questioned about whether there was a sexual motive in the killing as they became hysterical when the subject was brought up, but police were concerned that sexual abuse may have been committed.



They fucking love it don't they. Irresistable. Sex and death, the story has it all. 


> It was reduced to eight by the European Court, which ruled that the two boys had suffered “inhuman and degrading treatment in an adult court”.



Translate: Those do-gooding interfering European's forced us to release "the monsters" early



> The Sunday Mirror knows which prison Venables is being held in but cannot report it.



Translate: Watch this space. 



> “Our motivation throughout has been solely to ensure that some extremely serious allegations are properly investigated and that justice is done. No one in this country would want anything other. That is what the authorities remain *determined to do.”


Translate: The mirror knows best and is above the law.

I hope the courts take them to the fucking cleaners for this utter contempt of the law.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 7, 2010)

I do actually remember when the rules regarding _sub judice_ were adhered to. I am knocking on a bit. I fail to understand why the current situation has been allowed to happen.
I really hope that what d-b has rightly said comes to pass....



			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> If found to be in contempt of court (which appears obvious) they should be absolutely slaughtered. The paper should receive a swingeing fine and the editor and other decision making executives jailed. Pour encourager les autres.


----------



## Geri (Mar 7, 2010)

tombowler said:


> nice to see one paper not baying for blood and writing what to me is the most informative article about venables so for



Did you notice this bit?



> Relatively few people who have served a life sentence are recalled – last year there were only 89



Is 89 "relatively few"?


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 7, 2010)

Geri said:


> Is 89 "relatively few"?


Oh yeah!  

There are 200-300 murders every year, the majority of which result in convictions.  And there are lots of life sentences for serious crimes (attempted murder, GBH with intent, firearms offences, armed robbery, drug importation, rape, etc.) on top of that.  So there are thousands of people out there on life licences.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 7, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I do actually remember when the rules regarding _sub judice_ were adhered to. I am knocking on a bit. I fail to understand why the current situation has been allowed to happen.
> I really hope that what d-b has rightly said comes to pass....


Actually, thinking about it, perhaps the best outcome would be for the investigation to determine there was sufficient evidence to prosecute but for the Courts to throw the case out because of the prejudicial reporting, resulting in Venables having to be released again fairly soon ... accompanied by a massive "The Sunday Mirror and other fuckwit papers help suspected paedophile to escape justice" government funded advertising campaign (as the media would simply ignore a press release).

Then we could go and brick the paper's offices, paedo-loving scum!


----------



## Geri (Mar 7, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh yeah!
> 
> There are 200-300 murders every year, the majority of which result in convictions.  And there are lots of life sentences for serious crimes (attempted murder, GBH with intent, firearms offences, armed robbery, drug importation, rape, etc.) on top of that.  So there are thousands of people out there on life licences.



That's scary.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 7, 2010)

Geri said:


> That's scary.


It also explains why it's not _quite_ as simple as the media (and some politicians) imply to keep meaningful tabs on all of them ...

Reoffending by people on life licence (let alone on any sort of licence!) is nowhere near an automatic indication of some agency or individual official fucking up ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Is there no reference at all to these accounts (or the authors) on the web?  Nothing to give any indication of their level of access to original material, or their background?



Blake Morrison's website has some excerpts of "As If...", as well as some of Morrison's post-book thoughts.

I'll have a look through my index cards for the titles and authors of the other books I've read on the subject, and post up any links I can find.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> No, do-gooders like you are a disgrace. If you want to see something really ugly i suggest you try and imagine the state poor James was in by the end of that day.



You've obviously never seen a battered body, or you wouldn't have the poor taste to suggest that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2010)

Geri said:


> That's scary.


I draw the opposite conclusion – thousands out there on life licences, only a very small minority ever commit another offence of any description. 

If you look at the reoffending statistics for people who are released and are not on life licences, you'll find the numbers that reoffend are much, much higher.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> That 'mob' reaction was entirely natural. Want to know why? Because it helps cleanse the gene pool of fucking monsters like Venables and Thompson. Anyway i've said my piece.



The great thing about mob violence though, is how often innocents get hurt, even killed, as the mob extracts its vengeance.
Don't take my word for it. There are some reasonably good books on the subject in print. Clive Bloom's "Violent London", Robert Shoemaker's "The London Mob" and Christopher Hibbert's "King Mob" are all readable.

Still, I don't suppose that "collateral damage" matters to you, just as long as (mob) justice is served.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 7, 2010)

There was that arson attack a few years ago on a house where a sex offender lived or was suspected to live and a 14 year girl died....as far as I remember she was the sole casualty....I'll see if I can find a link, but my memory as to when it happened is a bit fuzzy...I know it was in the UK though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> Yes, the sick liberal establishment protects them. Just like Sutcliffe, Brady, Huntley and Carr. Most people support the re-introduction of the death penalty but we are denied it by a small degenerate elite that think they know best. Natural justice is not served anymore.



Please present me with evidence that "most people" support the reintroduction of the death penalty. 
I ask, because in 30 years of interest in the subject, I've *never* seen any firm evidence (that actually represents a cross-section of the population rather than a cross section of people reading _News Internationals'_ tabloids) to support your claim.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

Geri said:


> Did you notice this bit?
> 
> 
> 
> Is 89 "relatively few"?



Out of the total out on a life license? Yes. In the 90s, you'd be talking about an average of 2,000 (sometimes lower, sometimes higher) at any one time in the whole of England and Wales.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

Geri said:


> That's scary.



It's actually reassuring, as a majority of recalls are for minor offences that you or I might get a fine for.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It also explains why it's not _quite_ as simple as the media (and some politicians) imply to keep meaningful tabs on all of them ...


The entire system relies on the "self-policing" of the licencees and, oddly enough (given the media shrieking, anyway), the great majority of them will conform to their licence conditions and rigourously self-police for the rest of their lives.


> Reoffending by people on life licence (let alone on any sort of licence!) is nowhere near an automatic indication of some agency or individual official fucking up ...


In fact it's often the matter of a "momentary lapse of reason" by a licencee, arguing with the wrong person etc, not helped by the fact that even with all the courses in the world preparatory to release, you can't prepare someone for the culture shock of inhabiting a world 10, 20 or more years more advanced than when you left it.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Blake Morrison's website has some excerpts of "As If...", as well as some of Morrison's post-book thoughts.
> 
> I'll have a look through my index cards for the titles and authors of the other books I've read on the subject, and post up any links I can find.


Thanks.  Sounds like he heard everything at the trial and has done more besides.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> The great thing about mob violence though, is how often innocents get hurt, even killed, as the mob extracts its vengeance.


So very true ... 

As is the truism in the other direction, that when a demo kicks off to the point where the police decide to go in hard, it's often _not_ those who actually kicked it off that find themselves in the front line and taking the brunt of the response ...


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 7, 2010)

Just heard some fuckwit reporter on ITV News referring to the Ministry of Justice having "an excuse to keep some of it quiet" and slagging off how it's been dealt with ...

They _really_ are so fucking thick that they don't understand the fucking concept of _sub judice_, aren't they?  They really think it's all about playing fucking politics ... 

The way it's been dealt with by the fucking media is the scandal.  They have created a no-win situation for everyone else.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> it's often _not_ *those who actually kicked it off *that find themselves in the front line and taking the brunt of the response ...


The agents provocateurs, you mean. 

At the criminal justice act march, I nipped for a piss in a back street to see a whole army of coppers tooling up. A few minutes later, I saw the horses come out and men in hoods standing behind us telling anyone backing off from the confrontation to 'hold their lines'. These men were not with anyone else. Anarchists doing that would have been hunting in groups of friends, I would think. But anyway, the timing was, shall we say, uncanny. 

They wanted a ruck that day. They turned a large group of people dancing into a nasty confrontation for the benefit of next day's newspaper front pages.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 7, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> S
> 
> As is the truism in the other direction, that when a demo kicks off to the point where the police decide to go in hard, it's often _not_ those who actually kicked it off that find themselves in the front line and taking the brunt of the response ...



And then of course we have those times when nobody has kicked off at all, but the plod wade in anyway. Not so much a 'response' as an 'assault'.

I'd also argue that your use of the phrase 'front line' implies some kind of fair fight, or battle. Tooled up and armoured plod vs unarmed, unsupecting members of the public is no such thing. A baton charge is an act of cowardice, just like a lynch mob.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 7, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> They _really_ are so fucking thick that they don't understand the fucking concept of _sub judice_, aren't they?  They really think it's all about playing fucking politics ...


I don't think anyone under 50 even remembers it.....most people look blank when you try and explain it....OK, you're considerably younger than I am but you're legally trained......why has it not been enforced since the early 70s? Which is when it seemed to disappear from common parlance....


----------



## skevin (Mar 7, 2010)

This whole thing about Venables needing 'a fair trial' is a load of bollocks. You can legally be tried without a jury so i don't see what's holding the Daily Mirror back in exposing the scumbag! All they have to say is that his details have already been leaked on the internet and they won't get done. Even if they did get done i'm sure the Editor would become a national hero with plenty of supporters anyway!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> This whole thing about Venables needing 'a fair trial' is a load of bollocks. You can legally be tried without a jury so i don't see what's holding the Daily Mirror back in exposing the scumbag! All they have to say is that his details have already been leaked on the internet and they won't get done. Even if they did get done i'm sure the Editor would become a national hero with plenty of supporters anyway!



You are Carol Vordeman and I claim £5.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 7, 2010)

What? If the case collapses and he's back on the outside as a result? I'm not going to bother arguing with you skevin, because in the end all it means is I've trounced an idiot.....


----------



## skevin (Mar 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Please present me with evidence that "most people" support the reintroduction of the death penalty.
> I ask, because in 30 years of interest in the subject, I've *never* seen any firm evidence (that actually represents a cross-section of the population rather than a cross section of people reading _News Internationals'_ tabloids) to support your claim.




http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2007-03-19-Two-in-three-Britons-support-death-penalty-return

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/us_britain_and_canada_endorse_death_penalty/

http://www.beecareful.info/news/gen...0-per-cent-support-for-the-death-penalty.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/11005/support-death-penalty-us-britain-canada.aspx

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2504

Nuff said.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 7, 2010)

22 posts in almost 2 years. You spoil us, skevin.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 7, 2010)

HAHAHAHA!
I didn't look beyond skevins first link...a tiny sample (1100)  of people visiting the London Dungeon!

skevin, I suggest you read How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff. It's a quite basic introduction to statistics suitable for GCSE students.


----------



## skevin (Mar 7, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> HAHAHAHA!
> I didn't look beyond skevins first link...a tiny sample (1100)  of people visiting the London Dungeon!
> 
> skevin, I suggest you read How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff. It's a quite basic introduction to statistics suitable for GCSE students.



I suggest you read the rest of the links. It took me 3 minutes to find what ViolentPanda couldn't in 30 years so who do you thinks laughing harder?
Besides, smaller samples are used to gauge political support so up yours.


----------



## paulhackett (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> I suggest you read the rest of the links. It took me 3 minutes to find what ViolentPanda couldn't in 30 years so who do you thinks laughing harder?



Was there a poll showing the number of people in favour of executing 10 year olds?


----------



## dylans (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> I suggest you read the rest of the links. It took me 3 minutes to find what ViolentPanda couldn't in 30 years so who do you thinks laughing harder?
> Besides, smaller samples are used to gauge political support so up yours.



Ha ha ha 

You thick cunt!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 7, 2010)

I didn't think I'd get any laughs off this thread! I'm still chortling!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 7, 2010)

Most people do support capital punishment AFAIK. That doesn't make it right. I daresay many of the same people don't trust the establishment but seem willing to trust the government to kill people. Lots of people are stupid reactionaries riddled with doublethink but saying that is deemed "aloof" regardless of the ample evidence.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 7, 2010)

OK, for a start, skevin, there are roughly 51 million people over the age of 15 in the UK. Doing a tiny sample like just over 1000, even allowing for fixing for demographics is not going to give a true result...Secondly, telephone polls are not representative. Ask yourself why that is. 
I'm not even going there with the London Dungeon one!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 7, 2010)

Oh, and a poll result is meaningless unless you see exactly what questions have been asked. You can easily skew polls, even unwittingly, by slight nuances in questions. A very important question is who commissioned the poll and why.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 7, 2010)

Again, and I don't care to prove the point, but I am fairly certain that most polling indicates a support for capital punishment - it's a problem typical of those faced by progressive democrats. Democracy can easily be mob rule.  Square that circle comrades.


----------



## skevin (Mar 7, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Oh, and a poll result is meaningless unless you see exactly what questions have been asked. You can easily skew polls, even unwittingly, by slight nuances in questions. A very important question is who commissioned the poll and why.



Shall i pick your dummy up for you?


----------



## tombowler (Mar 7, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I know several and one really worrying (and very sad) common factor is the sudden loss of any caring relationship they have had with the care worker(s).  How this happens seems to vary: at the extreme one very close, pseudo-parental relationship was just ended abruptly by the care worker who just said "It's not my job any more, you're out of here" (not _quite_ in so many words, but not far off) which left the young person absolutely adrift; at the other end of the scale I know of one care worker who maintained (and still does, years later) a high-level of contact and availability (despite being told not to by their bosses because it wasn't their job any more, not because of any inappropriateness), sort of like a parent / child relationship when the latter has left home.  Most were somewhere in between (but significantly closer to the first situation!).
> 
> Bearing in mind that this happens at 16/17/18 when most kids worlds are turning upside down anyway, I think it is something that needs more careful addressing.



I have to agree with you here, i have worked in the care of young people with challenging behavior (read fucked up by thier parents/abused) and the leaving care at 16/17 is a fuck up suddenly no support structure from 24 hour support no wonder so many fail and keep failing, i have seen only two leave care both have had problems and still do, i would be there to help but i burned out and left the country my co workers still do give support when needed.


----------



## dylans (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> Shall i pick your dummy up for you?



No you can get one from the next child you lynch


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 7, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> OK, for a start, skevin, there are roughly 51 million people over the age of 15 in the UK. Doing a tiny sample like just over 1000, even allowing for fixing for demographics is not going to give a true result...Secondly, telephone polls are not representative. Ask yourself why that is.
> I'm not even going there with the London Dungeon one!



This. 

The trouble with these polls that assume to gauge public opinion on hanging is also the questions asked. More often than not the question is "should Britain reintroduce the death penalty?".

My support for the DP is conditional upon a unanimous jury verdict of guilty and a mercy option to be considered by the jury. If polls were to include these caveats, capital punishment would almost certainly achieve wider support.

As it is I don't think we can say with any certainty what the "public" think on the issue one way or the other.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> I suggest you read the rest of the links. It took me 3 minutes to find what ViolentPanda couldn't in 30 years so who do you thinks laughing harder?
> Besides, smaller samples are used to gauge political support so up yours.


I rather wish that VP hadn't made that statement, because it almost serves to legitimise this simplistic "what more people believe something is the truth" attitude you display.

If every decision were taken on that basis, we'd still be burning witches and cooking over open fires. There'd be no engineering - after all, what do most people know about engineering? - or science. Language would be...well, frankly, most of us wouldn't be reading or writing. Why should the psychology of child criminals be any different? Surely the average reader of the Daily Mail doesn't really believe that they're as capable of being so knowledgeable about child psychology that they can gainsay - purely by weight of numbers - the professional opinions of people who are?

Is it just that it's rather harder to measure the immediate benefits of taking a better psychological approach in a way that panders to simplistic thinking that makes it OK to belittle the knowledge and insight that decades of research and thought have produced? Do we do the same thing with the people who design our car engines, and berate these do-gooding yogurt-knitters for presuming to suggest that, say, computerised engine management systems are better than good old carburettors?

You dismiss the views of experts with a wave of the hand, but are happy to cite the uninformed opinions of a particular group of people, solely because there are more of them? Don't you see the idiocy in this approach?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2007-03-19-Two-in-three-Britons-support-death-penalty-return


Sample of 1,100


> http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/us_britain_and_canada_endorse_death_penalty/


3 samples of just over 1,000 a piece in UK, US and Canada


> http://www.beecareful.info/news/gen...0-per-cent-support-for-the-death-penalty.html


Does not indicate size of sample.


> http://www.gallup.com/poll/11005/support-death-penalty-us-britain-canada.aspx


Another 3 nation poll, with sample sizes of around 1,000


> http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2504


Sample of just under 1,000


> Nuff said.



Any idea how easy it is to skew a poll of such a small sample, when the population of the UK is over 60 million?

If you believe that the above is "nuff said", you're either too soapy to be allowed out on your own, or mendacious.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> This whole thing about Venables needing 'a fair trial' is a load of bollocks. You can legally be tried without a jury...


For which type of cases, Brainiac? 


> so i don't see what's holding the Daily Mirror back in exposing the scumbag! All they have to say is that his details have already been leaked on the internet and they won't get done. Even if they did get done i'm sure the Editor would become a national hero with plenty of supporters anyway!


Bit of a shit-stirrer, aren't you?


----------



## skevin (Mar 7, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I rather wish that VP hadn't made that statement, because it almost serves to legitimise this simplistic "what more people believe something is the truth" attitude you display.
> 
> If every decision were taken on that basis, we'd still be burning witches and cooking over open fires. There'd be no engineering - after all, what do most people know about engineering? - or science. Language would be...well, frankly, most of us wouldn't be reading or writing. Why should the psychology of child criminals be any different? Surely the average reader of the Daily Mail doesn't really believe that they're as capable of being so knowledgeable about child psychology that they can gainsay - purely by weight of numbers - the professional opinions of people who are?
> 
> ...




Well what's the point in voting in a supposed _democracy_ if our ruling classes don't act according to the publics will? You seem to be arguing _for_ dictatorship.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 7, 2010)

tombowler said:


> I have to agree with you here, i have worked in the care of young people with challenging behavior (read fucked up by thier parents/abused) and the leaving care at 16/17 is a fuck up suddenly no support structure from 24 hour support no wonder so many fail and keep failing, i have seen only two leave care both have had problems and still do, i would be there to help but i burned out and left the country my co workers still do give support when needed.



It's not just at the care/outside world transition. I work in a field where we provide services to young people via their school. If someone drops out of the school system, or is excluded, it can be very hard to maintain contact with the very people who are often the most in need of help. That's a real difficulty in the professional systems in place to provide quasi-parental support to young people pro tem, given the permanent familial structures that need to remain in place when someone has left home and begun a life of their own.

It's also often the case in psychiatric healthcare, where patients can develop complex and dependent bonds on care providers, only to have to rebuild the whole thing when, say, someone gets promoted or moves out of area. And when people are discharged, it can often be that the transition from professionally-provided support networks to informal social ones presents very big challenges.

It's a very tough problem to solve, and no solution could ever be easy or cheap, so I suspect it's a problem we're stuck with - an imperfection in the system. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that the professionally-provided one is somehow significantly better than the alternative would have been...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> HAHAHAHA!
> I didn't look beyond skevins first link...a tiny sample (1100)  of people visiting the London Dungeon!
> 
> skevin, I suggest you read How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff. It's a quite basic introduction to statistics suitable for GCSE students.



Every link is to a poll/survey using a similar-sized sample. Effectively, given the size of population they're being used to represent, they're meaningless.


----------



## skevin (Mar 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Any idea how easy it is to skew a poll of such a small sample, when the population of the UK is over 60 million?
> 
> If you believe that the above is "nuff said", you're either too soapy to be allowed out on your own, or mendacious.



So are you also saying that voting intention polls are useless then? The average sample size for those is around 1000.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> I suggest you read the rest of the links. It took me 3 minutes to find what ViolentPanda couldn't in 30 years so who do you thinks laughing harder?
> Besides, smaller samples are used to gauge political support so up yours.



No, it took you 3 minutes to find polls with samples far too small to have even statistical meaning.
Did you read any of the actual data for the polls you linked to, by the way?
If not, can I suggest that you (and anyone else) read the "complete poll" pdf on the second link, review the questions and possible answers, and then ask yourself whether the poll was at all loaded toward a particular conclusion.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> Well what's the point in voting in a supposed _democracy_ if our ruling classes don't act according to the publics will? You seem to be arguing _for_ dictatorship.


Ho ho ho.

I now am beginning to believe that it is actually possible that you really are as stupid as you appear to be coming across here.

You believe that any of the significant progress made in science, engineering, medicine, astronomy, or any of a thousand other spheres was made on the basis of democratic systems? Democracy may have facilitated the kind of institutions in which some of the best work was done, but knowledge and progress are by no means democratic processes.

Perhaps you think that the laws of physics are only the way they are because a bunch of people voted that they should be, the same way Parliament votes laws into being?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Oh, and a poll result is meaningless unless you see exactly what questions have been asked. You can easily skew polls, even unwittingly, by slight nuances in questions. A very important question is who commissioned the poll and why.



Yep.
I remember how el Jefe, who worked in polling, used to rag people silly who took such polls seriously, and explain how easy it is to "load" them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Again, and I don't care to prove the point, but I am fairly certain that most polling indicates a support for capital punishment - it's a problem typical of those faced by progressive democrats. Democracy can easily be mob rule.  Square that circle comrades.



Does "Most polling" reflect reality? 

That's what you should be asking.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I rather wish that VP hadn't made that statement, because it almost serves to legitimise this simplistic "what more people believe something is the truth" attitude you display.


It only legitimises it to idiots, though.


> If every decision were taken on that basis, we'd still be burning witches and cooking over open fires. There'd be no engineering - after all, what do most people know about engineering? - or science. Language would be...well, frankly, most of us wouldn't be reading or writing. Why should the psychology of child criminals be any different? Surely the average reader of the Daily Mail doesn't really believe that they're as capable of being so knowledgeable about child psychology that they can gainsay - purely by weight of numbers - the professional opinions of people who are?
> 
> Is it just that it's rather harder to measure the immediate benefits of taking a better psychological approach in a way that panders to simplistic thinking that makes it OK to belittle the knowledge and insight that decades of research and thought have produced? Do we do the same thing with the people who design our car engines, and berate these do-gooding yogurt-knitters for presuming to suggest that, say, computerised engine management systems are better than good old carburettors?
> 
> You dismiss the views of experts with a wave of the hand, but are happy to cite the uninformed opinions of a particular group of people, solely because there are more of them? Don't you see the idiocy in this approach?



The people have spoken. 

Except, of course, that they haven't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> Well what's the point in voting in a supposed _democracy_ if our ruling classes don't act according to the publics will? You seem to be arguing _for_ dictatorship.


If I were you, I'd read up on the constitution.
It's not incumbent on our "ruling class" to execute the will of the public. It's not even incumbent on individual councillors or MPs to represent the will of their constituents.
That's parliamentary democracy for you!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Does "Most polling" reflect reality?
> 
> That's what you should be asking.



Any decent pollster would say that it doesn't but many a sophisticated effort goes to making it do so as much as possible. A series of similar responses from polling would statistically indicate a very high likelyhood that it reflected reality.
This is how I understand the case re support for state-killing. I would be delighted to be proved wrong.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> So are you also saying that voting intention polls are useless then? The average sample size for those is around 1000.



You tell me.

If the size of the potential electorate (assuming 100% voting) is >32 million, of what use is a poll sample equivalent to 1/320th of 1% of that population?

You're also comparing apples and oranges. Most voting intention polls are made in fixed locations, specifically marginal constituencies with a total population of 100-150,000 . 0.6-1% of a constituency population is a *slightly* better sample than 1/320th of a single percent nationwide.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Ho ho ho.
> 
> I now am beginning to believe that it is actually possible that you really are as stupid as you appear to be coming across here.
> 
> You believe that any of the significant progress made in science, engineering, medicine, astronomy, or any of a thousand other spheres was made on the basis of democratic systems? Democracy may have facilitated the kind of institutions in which some of the best work was done, but knowledge and progress are by no means democratic processes.


Thankfully.
Personally, I'm glad acceptance of the laws of thermodynamics wasn't put to a vote!


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> If not, can I suggest that you (and anyone else) read the "complete poll" pdf on the second link, review the questions and possible answers, and then ask yourself whether the poll was at all loaded toward a particular conclusion.



Tbh, that's one of the fairer polls I've seen on the topic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Any decent pollster would say that it doesn't but many a sophisticated effort goes to making it do so as much as possible. A series of similar responses from polling would statistically indicate a very high likelyhood that it reflected reality.
> This is how I understand the case re support for state-killing. I would be delighted to be proved wrong.



The problem with small-sample statistics, as with small-sample sociological and medical research, is that the results are eminently manipulable, and unless you have access to the original data (which is sometimes hard to get hold of, but revealing when read), then it's hard to discern reality from downright fiction.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 7, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Tbh, that's one of the fairer polls I've seen on the topic.


It is.
But the questions are still non-neutral, and the short range of answers weighs on the side of one answer over the other(s).

My point is, if I were doing research for a client, I'd want more detail and a bigger sample before I'd be willing to represent a poll to my client as being even loosely "definitive" on a subject.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 7, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Tbh, that's one of the fairer polls I've seen on the topic.



Yup. But even then, only 67% support the death penalty and that's only for murder. That still leaves 33% who don't support it. And that's in a poll, where the proportion saying yes would be much higher than in any real vote that would have real consequences. 

Given that the death penalty involves, well, _death_, which is the biggest punishment possible and can never be revoked, really you'd need close to 100% support before it became democratic to reintroduce the death penalty 'because the public want it.'


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 7, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> My point is, if I were doing research for a client, I'd want more detail and a bigger sample before I'd be willing to represent a poll to my client as being even loosely "definitive" on a subject.



Yeah, ok.



scifisam said:


> ..... really you'd need close to 100% support before it became democratic to reintroduce the death penalty 'because the public want it.'



 Not sure about this though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2010)

It's been shown many times that if you ask people, 'Do you think murderers should be hanged?' you will get a higher percentage in favour of the statement than you would if people had to sit down and listen to representations from other people before voting. 

Many people don't think about this issue too deeply, so when they do, they realise that, on balance, they are not in favour. 

This is the problem with government by referendum. It does not lead to the society that most people want. Far better to choose, say 2,000 random people, sit them down to a thorough debate and at the end of it let them, and only them, vote on the issue. 

Snap referendums don't actually tell you what people want. They tell you what people say they want, but without any control for how much they have thought about it – the vote of someone who's never devoted a second's thought to a subject is given the same weight as that of someone who has spent years studying it. 

Switzerland shows the mess this kind of thing can lead to. While I applaud direct democracy to an extent, it can be abused – the minaret ban is the obvious example: most Swiss were probably opposed to this idea (iirc the turnout was only about 50%), but not enough of those opposed to it bothered to vote (it was widely expected that the idea would be defeated). 

Sometimes you have two choices and you need to choose one, however many people turn out to vote – as in an election to choose the government. But a referendum on change is different. Some changes should not be brought in if, for instance, 40% of the population is very strongly opposed while 60% are in favour, but few of them strongly so. If 40% are in favour and 60% opposed, the apathy of a proportion of that 60% should not mean that the 40% get their way and the change is made simply because enough of them have got together to force a vote.

In the case of the death penalty, the strong opposition of a sizeable minority opposed to a mostly very weak support from the majority ought to mean that it is not brought back.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 7, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I don't think anyone under 50 even remembers it.....most people look blank when you try and explain it....OK, you're considerably younger than I am but you're legally trained......why has it not been enforced since the early 70s? Which is when it seemed to disappear from common parlance....


It has been enforced and is generally observed to a certain extent ... but it seems to have become generally accepted that it only starts at the _charging_ of someone.  In law, it could / should be defined as the _arrest_ of someone.  In the olden days (before PACE and it's detention times and the CPS and their charging standards) that didn't make a lot of difference - if you got nicked you were usually charged within a day or two (as soon as a _prima facie_ case was available) and then you spent forever on remand.  This meant that by the time the media got their act together it was "properly" _sub judice_.

Now, with far lengthier investigative stages (due to the increased complexity of available techniques), with CPS charging standards meaning that you pretty much have to have a case ready to go before you charge and everything else, that has changed.  No-one would _ever_ be bailed for further enquiries in a murder case in the old days (except in the very weakest cases).  Now it is absolutely commonplace to preserve PACE detention time.

As well as these changes on the police / prosecution side, there have been massive changes on the media side, with the need to constantly feed the monster that is 24 hour rolling news and the tabloids ever more eager to find ways of stealing the march over that.

Basically the world has changed and the way we used _sub judice_ then is not fit for purpose now ... and no-one seems to have noticed (or, if they have, to be willing to do anything about it)!


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 7, 2010)

skevin said:


> This whole thing about Venables needing 'a fair trial' is a load of bollocks.


No, it isn't.



> You can legally be tried without a jury


No, you can't (except in circumstances which do not apply here).


----------



## dylans (Mar 7, 2010)

> Originally Posted by skevin
> This whole thing about Venables needing 'a fair trial' is a load of bollocks.



Yes. We should have just strung him up to the nearest tree when he was 10


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 7, 2010)

No dylans, that's not democracy....an opinion poll is the way to go.
Slavering rabid pitbulls
Burnt at stake
Holiday Camp at taxpayers expense


----------



## weltweit (Mar 7, 2010)

Gov spokesperson says not to prejudge what are serious allegations for fear of prejudicing a future trial. So there may be something serious behind this recall but we are not to know what it is!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 7, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Gov spokesperson says not to prejudge what are serious allegations for fear of prejudicing a future trial. So there may be something serious behind this recall but we are not to know what it is!



As we don't know what is behind most recalls, nor care less. But most recalls aren't related to kiddie killers and dont satisfy the media's purient lust for anything to do with child murders.


----------



## magneze (Mar 7, 2010)

I'm sure this has been asked before on this thread but ... Why should we know?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 7, 2010)

Prurient interest of the tabloid reading-public.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 7, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> As we don't know what is behind most recalls, nor care less. But most recalls aren't related to kiddie killers and dont satisfy the media's purient lust for anything to do with child murders.



As I probably already said, I expect one of the tabloids (at least) already knows what the allegations are and which prison he is being held in etc etc ... they are just not telling us because of all the trouble they could get into. But his (venables) identity has been compromised.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 7, 2010)

magneze said:


> I'm sure this has been asked before on this thread but ... Why should we know?



We shouldn't know.. 

Unless their is a trial, and then that should probably be reported as trials are reported.


----------



## magneze (Mar 7, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Prurient interest of the tabloid reading-public.


 Is the public really interested though, or is it media generated? I suspect is more of the latter ..


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 7, 2010)

Well the media wouldn't generate unless it sold papers. Equal blame I think.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 7, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well the media wouldn't generate unless it sold papers. Equal blame I think.



Cant blame the public though or say that stupid sickos are stupid or sick. It's,  snobbish, moralising and aloof. I read as much on these very boards.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2010)

Bit of both, but much more blame on those producing the stories than those reading them. 

I don't profess to really understand why people read the tabloids, but they read them, I'm guessing, to be entertained rather than informed. I don't think many people buy the Sun in order to be outraged by something or in order to intrude on someone's life in a destructive way. 

Or maybe they do. I'm trying to put myself in the head of someone who reads the Sun out of choice, and I'm struggling.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 7, 2010)

'twas ever thus......


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 7, 2010)

Oh dear...the cynicism and world weariness is washing over me like a tide of sewage....I think it's been engaging with the likes of gunneradt and skevin...time for bed and perhaps I won't have this feeling of Weltschmertz on the morrow.....


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 7, 2010)

weltweit said:


> So there may be something serious behind this recall but we are not to know what it is!


We're not to know what it fucking is YET

There is _nothing_ to suggest we won't all find out everything (well, everything the media see fit to print ... which means all the salacious froth and gossip and fuck all of anything actually informative or elucidating ) in due course.

It's how the fucking criminal justice system ensures people get a fair fucking trial.  Jesus fucking Christ, how fucking impatient / self-interested people are today.


----------



## Main Street (Mar 8, 2010)

*background info*

is there any info/books talking about Venables and Thompson families. 

I don't buy the line - "they're just evil."

How did they get to the place where they did something so horrific?

You know when this happened, I remember it, but really it kind of passed me by. I was in my early 20s, partying a lot, was about to leave London for Scotland. 

I do remember it was kind of a bit of a depressing time, Tory govt - back to basics bullshit, recession, post rave fallout. 

On the positive didn't Castlemorton happen that year? I think i got into the Levellers too.

I know it's a big leap but what does it say or did it say about society at that time? What does it also say about mall shopping, which by the way, I still loathe to this day, give me the High Street!


----------



## weltweit (Mar 8, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> We're not to know what it fucking is YET
> 
> There is _nothing_ to suggest we won't all find out everything (well, everything the media see fit to print ... which means all the salacious froth and gossip and fuck all of anything actually informative or elucidating ) in due course.
> 
> It's how the fucking criminal justice system ensures people get a fair fucking trial.  Jesus fucking Christ, how fucking impatient / self-interested people are today.



Calm down DB, you are going to give yourself angina!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Gov spokesperson says not to prejudge what are serious allegations for fear of prejudicing a future trial. So there may be something serious behind this recall but we are not to know what it is!



Which is as it should be. Case details are _sub judice_ until presented in court.


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 8, 2010)

Nearly beat my head against the steering wheel listening to Radio 5 callers this morning - 

Caller - "We need to know his new identity and all the details about his life"
Host - "Why is that"
Caller - "Because we need to know our kids are safe, he could be anyone. Plus if they tell us now, then no-one can make any money out of telling us later"


----------



## trashpony (Mar 8, 2010)

I'm sorry but I'm getting really irritated by the press coverage on this



> Denise Fergus was speaking on This Morning, ITV1
> She told ITV's This Morning: "I want to know why he, I can't even bring myself to say his name, has been recalled to prison.
> "If he (Mr Straw) can't tell me now, then I want to know after any criminal proceedings against him have finished. "


And a woman from campaign group Mothers against Murderers (!)


> "We don't know what he's done and I think it's now time the government has to rethink their whole policy on keeping this a secret."



Why are they giving these people air time? Why are they not explaining _sub judice_??? Aaargh


----------



## existentialist (Mar 8, 2010)

While I am sympathetic to her for her loss, I am heartily sick of the news programmes that endlessly go back to her for more of the same "they never shoulda be let out" stuff. Interminable vox pops from the great and the good of Bootle, explaining how they'd like Bubba to sort out Venables in prison, aren't exactly inspiring, either.

Gah.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 8, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Why are they not explaining _sub judice_???


Because (in no particular order):

1. Most of them are so fucking thick / useless they don't know what it is.
2. Those that do have a clue about it, don't want to explain it because they see it as an infringement of the freedom of the press (to print whatever the fuck they like and bollocks to anyone else's interests)
3. The media have entirely abandoned any pretence of _educting / informing_ citizens
4. The media have _entirely_ abdicated their responsibility to do (3) as a key part of society in a liberal democracy
5. They're cunts


----------



## Louloubelle (Mar 8, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Because (in no particular order):
> 
> 1. Most of them are so fucking thick / useless they don't know what it is.
> 2. Those that do have a clue about it, don't want to explain it because they see it as an infringement of the freedom of the press (to print whatever the fuck they like and bollocks to anyone else's interests)
> ...



all of this 

plus I think there is something especially odious about the exploitation of victim's families by the media just to get a salacious and exciting soundbite. 

Some parents / families of victims go on to become political activists as a way of not going under and killing themselves.  Sometimes, as in the case of David and Kate Bagby in Canada, they go on to achieve great things.  Mostly thought, I think that traumatised, bereaved families are extremely vulnerable and our media takes terrible liberties with them to the point where it can become an abusive relationship, where cynical hacks just ride roughshod over people's grief in order to get what they want.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 8, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Because (in no particular order):
> 
> 1. Most of them are so fucking thick / useless they don't know what it is.
> 2. Those that do have a clue about it, don't want to explain it because they see it as an infringement of the freedom of the press (to print whatever the fuck they like and bollocks to anyone else's interests)
> ...



The media have never had a responsibility to do this (except the BBC, which did explain sub judice on Breakfast Time this morning).  Newspapers, commercial radio etc are businesses.  Their only duty is to increase their shareholders profits.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 8, 2010)

And for that matter, why the fuck doesn't Jack Straw say that if a potential trial is prejudiced, then Venables may get with whatever crime he has been accused of? It wouldn't be hard for him to spin it in such a way that it would may sense to the hang-em brigade.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 8, 2010)

trashpony said:


> And for that matter, why the fuck doesn't Jack Straw say that if a potential trial is prejudiced, then Venables may get with whatever crime he has been accused of? It wouldn't be hard for him to spin it in such a way that it would may sense to the hang-em brigade.



seems with all the negative coverage, Venables will just get a 'get out of jail free card '- there's no way he can have a fair trial for whatever he has done, if this continues


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2010)

we haven't dealt with bulger's killers well at all.
here's another approach to mull over:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...re-karacs-reports-from-trondheim-1444162.html


----------



## Iguana (Mar 8, 2010)

Main Street said:


> is there any info/books talking about Venables and Thompson families.
> 
> I don't buy the line - "they're just evil."
> 
> How did they get to the place where they did something so horrific?



There's a decent background article on them here; http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1993/nov/25/bulger


----------



## Iguana (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> we haven't dealt with bulger's killers well at all.
> here's another approach to mull over:
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...re-karacs-reports-from-trondheim-1444162.html



Here's another article written in 2000 about how the town carried on and how things worked out up until that point.  The levelheadedness and forgiveness is astounding.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/30/bulger.simonhattenstone


----------



## The Octagon (Mar 8, 2010)

The media's use of the victim's family in these types of stories really annoys me, but I can't explain properly without sounding like a bastard.

Basically it's the fact they can't be argued with, it's be almost impossible to sit opposite (for example) Denise Fergus and explain sub-judice or any of the other rational points, without coming across like an unfeeling twat.


----------



## Iguana (Mar 8, 2010)

The Octagon said:


> The media's use of the victim's family in these types of stories really annoys me, but I can't explain properly without sounding like a bastard.
> 
> Basically it's the fact they can't be argued with, it's be almost impossible to sit opposite (for example) Denise Fergus and explain sub-judice or any of the other rational points, without coming across like an unfeeling twat.



It's not just that.  It's so fucking hypocritical.  They sit there, her concerned champion, giving her a voice so she can tell us how much all of this is hurting her.  When the simple fact is that if the media hadn't created this fucking circus around Venables recall she would not be feeling as awful as she is right now.  It's like she has a wound and they keep poking her in it and then giving her the opportunity to say how painful it is.

It's so exploitative.  They are taking advantage of every element of the situation for their own ends, yet pretending they give a damn about her.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2010)

Main Street said:


> is there any info/books talking about Venables and Thompson families.
> 
> I don't buy the line - "they're just evil."
> 
> ...



i would recommend two books. first is cries unheard by gitta sereny. it's about the case of mary bell, but the appendix in later editions has been expanded with comments about the bulger case added. the whole book throws some light on the way children are dealt with by courts though and whether they are culpable at such a young age.
you should also read blake morrison's as if, which is more explicitly about the bulger trial, though morrison wisely opens it up and makes us look at our own children or ourselves when we were children.
they're both cracking books
i would also read border crossing by pat barker. it's fiction but just as compassionate and humane as the other two books.


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

Iguana said:


> Here's another article written in 2000 about how the town carried on and how things worked out up until that point.  The levelheadedness and forgiveness is astounding.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/30/bulger.simonhattenstone



More middle-class london journos saying the scruffy Liverpool proles need to be as civilised as they are in other countries?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> More middle-class london journos saying the scruffy Liverpool proles need to be as civilised as they are in other countries?


i wouldn't have put it that way, but yes.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 8, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't profess to really understand why people read the tabloids, but they read them, I'm guessing, to be entertained rather than informed. I don't think many people buy the Sun in order to be outraged by something or in order to intrude on someone's life in a destructive way.
> 
> Or maybe they do. I'm trying to put myself in the head of someone who reads the Sun out of choice, and I'm struggling.



God, I wish I was like you. It must be wonderful to exist on a higher plane than all the plebs.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> God, I wish I was like you. It must be wonderful to exist on a higher plane than all the plebs.



you mean possess one iota of humanity?


----------



## Diamond (Mar 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> The media have never had a responsibility to do this (except the BBC, which did explain sub judice on Breakfast Time this morning).  Newspapers, commercial radio etc are businesses.  Their only duty is to increase their shareholders profits.



That's not strictly true. The principal responsibility of the directors is to the members of the company and the dividends/value that derive from the shares fall under that aegis but there are other duties that the directors have to have regard to which could be argued to include a responsibility towards the public in this regard.


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> God, I wish I was like you. It must be wonderful to exist on a higher plane than all the plebs.



Address Him as 'Lord', not 'God'.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> you mean possess one iota of humanity?



Ah, I get it. People who flick through the Star for the football and the tv guide don't have one iota of humanity.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> Address Him as 'Lord', not 'God'.



I think the correct term is "awakened one"


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Ah, I get it. People who flick through the Star for the football and the tv guide don't have one iota of humanity.



no, people who think venables and thompson should be fed to the baying mob. not all sun readers think this.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 8, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Not sure about this though.



Because a death sentence is completely and utterly irrevocable. It's not the kind of punishment any judge should hand down if he was in the teeniest tiniest bit unsure. The same goes for bringing the death penalty back at all - it's something you'd have to be really, really sure about. 

I guess it's same principle whereby (unless I'm misremembering, which is possible - haven't slept for ages) juries in crimes that used to merit the death penalty had to return a unanymous verdict, not just majority.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> not all sun readers think this.



Which is what I was alluding to in my reply to LBJ. But thanks for spelling it out for the hard of understanding.


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> no, people who think venables and thompson should be fed to the baying mob. not all sun readers think this.



What differentiates the 'baying mob' at the James Bulger trial from the one at the Stephen Lawrence one?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> What differentiates the 'baying mob' at the James Bulger trial from the one at the Stephen Lawrence one?



nowt


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Which is what I was alluding to in my reply to LBJ. But thanks for spelling it out for the hard of understanding.



yeah, i thought i was quoting you quoting something else. i'm reading this thread backwards


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> yeah, i thought i was quoting you quoting something else. i'm reading this thread backwards



Tis a bit unwieldy for sure.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 8, 2010)

Diamond said:


> That's not strictly true. The principal responsibility of the directors is to the members of the company and the dividends/value that derive from the shares fall under that aegis but there are other duties that the directors have to have regard to which could be argued to include a responsibility towards the public in this regard.



Where is this responsibility enshrined?  The law?  AFAIK, the law is that plc's have the duty to increase profits to shareholders.  Is there another law that forces newspapers to have a responsibility to educate and inform?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> What differentiates the 'baying mob' at the James Bulger trial from the one at the Stephen Lawrence one?



Not quite nowt. Lawrences murderers were adult racist gangster filth who got away with it. Bulger's were screwed up little boys. I don't hold with van bangers of any description but the demonisation of Vennables and Thompson is irrational and lurid. They did something very nasty, it's arguable they should have served longer and more austere terms but the latest story is one big zero (lifer recalled shocker) blown out of all proportion because of sick peoples fascination with murdering kids.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Not quite nowt. Lawrences murderers were adult racist gangster filth who got away with it. Bulger's were screwed up little boys. I don't hold with van bangers of any description but the demonisation of Vennables and Thompson is irrational and lurid. They did something very nasty, it's arguable they should have served longer and more austere terms but the latest story is one big zero (lifer recalled shocker) blown out of all proportion because of sick peoples fascination with murdering kids.



but the need to point and stare and scream in hate comes from the same place


----------



## existentialist (Mar 8, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> God, I wish I was like you. It must be wonderful to exist on a higher plane than all the plebs.


Funny, isn't it, how quickly the apologists for this kind of media feeding frenzy resort to the nasty personal jibes?

You'd almost think that their argument didn't actually have a leg to stand on...


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Funny, isn't it, how quickly the apologists for this kind of media feeding frenzy resort to the nasty personal jibes?
> 
> You'd almost think that their argument didn't actually have a leg to stand on...



Yours doesn't.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> but the need to point and stare and scream in hate comes from the same place



Ultimately, but there is more of substance to point, stare and scream at in the Lawrence case. Especially as they got away with it and the way the racist police handled it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Ultimately, but there is more of substance to point, stare and scream at in the Lawrence case. Especially as they got away with it and the way the racist police handled it.


i think anger is justified in both cases, just not sure throwing eggs at police vans outside courts is a useful outlet for it


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> but the need to point and stare and scream in hate comes from the same place



That the wankers who run this cesspit value property more than people. Rob a bank get a 12 yr stretch. Kill a kid and you're out in 2.


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> Kill a kid and you're out in 2.


  i'm outraged. when did this happen?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> That the wankers who run this cesspit value property more than people. Rob a bank get a 12 yr stretch. Kill a kid and you're out in 2.


aren't you missing the point here?


----------



## ymu (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> That the wankers who run this cesspit value property more than people. Rob a bank get a 12 yr stretch. Kill a kid and you're out in 2.



2?


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

killer b said:


> i'm outraged. when did this happen?



Last week maybe.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> Last week maybe.



 C'mon man, try harder! Aren't we worth better trolling than that? You're not putting any effort in at all. Frankly, I'm insulted.


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> aren't you missing the point here?



Probably lol.


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

scifisam said:


> C'mon man, try harder! Aren't we worth better trolling than that? You're not putting any effort in at all. Frankly, I'm insulted.



Cutbacks, understaffed as it is.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> Yours doesn't.


QED.

Same (usual) lack of substantive debate, same (usual) attempt to stir it up a bit.

Did you actually *have* a point?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2010)

existentialist said:


> QED.
> 
> Same (usual) lack of substantive debate, same (usual) attempt to stir it up a bit.
> 
> Did you actually *have* a point?



s/he's mad as hell and s/he's not going to take anymore


----------



## existentialist (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> s/he's mad as hell and s/he's not going to take anymore


Oh, right. We'd better stop giving it to him/her, then.

Er, what isn't (s)he going to take any more of? Only I've got to get rid of 500kg of over-ripe plums *somehow*


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> s/he's mad as hell and s/he's not going to take anymore



Frothing with rage i am.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 8, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Funny, isn't it, how quickly the apologists for this kind of media feeding frenzy resort to the nasty personal jibes?
> 
> You'd almost think that their argument didn't actually have a leg to stand on...



What was nasty and personal about that? I could have been blunter and said he was the kind of elitist liberal that puts most people off the left, but I was thinking about your feelings.


----------



## Diamond (Mar 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Where is this responsibility enshrined?  The law?  AFAIK, the law is that plc's have the duty to increase profits to shareholders.  Is there another law that forces newspapers to have a responsibility to educate and inform?



s172 of the Companies Act 2006 - specifically subsection (d).



> 172 Duty to promote the success of the company
> (1) A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would
> be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its
> members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—
> ...



No one is 100% clear on what it means yet but it could conceivably be judicially found that newspapers have a responsibility to not run the risk of sub judice.


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> What was nasty and personal about that? I could have been blunter and said he was the kind of elitist liberal that puts most people off the left, but I was thinking about your feelings.



Please don't associate that sort with the left.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> Please don't associate that sort with the left.



Unfortunately most people do.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 8, 2010)

Diamond said:


> s172 of the Companies Act 2006 - specifically subsection (4).
> 
> 
> 
> No one is 100% clear on what it means yet but it could conceivably be judicially found that newspapers have a responsibility to not run the risk of sub judice.



Well, they have a responsibilty not to run the risk of sub judice otherwise be in contempt of court.  That's not what I was commenting on however.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 8, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> What was nasty and personal about that? I could have been blunter and said he was the kind of elitist liberal that puts most people off the left, but I was thinking about your feelings.


Well, it's pretty obvious even from the response you've just made to me there that you're far more interested in flinging meaningless labels - "elitist liberal" - around than engaging in any kind of debate.

Got to the point where *any* attention is better than none, have we?


----------



## Diamond (Mar 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Well, they have a responsibilty not to run the risk of sub judice otherwise be in contempt of court.  That's not what I was commenting on however.



They could be found to have a similar duty but in regard to the public through that section though.


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Unfortunately most people do.



I know, and what's worse is some of these start believing it too.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 8, 2010)

Diamond said:


> They could be found to have a similar duty but in regard to the public through that section though.



It's only section (d) that mentions the public.  The rest is about shareholders.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 8, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Well, it's pretty obvious even from the response you've just made to me there that you're far more interested in flinging meaningless labels - "elitist liberal" - around than engaging in any kind of debate.
> 
> Got to the point where *any* attention is better than none, have we?



Thanks for demonstrating that knee-jerk reaction and inability to do nuance isn't confined to people who read the tabloids.


----------



## Diamond (Mar 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> It's only section (d) that mentions the public.  The rest is about shareholders.



That doesn't really matter.

It's a very widely and weakly drafted section and as a consequence it provides the judiciary with great discretion as to its application.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 8, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Thanks for demonstrating that knee-jerk reaction and inability to do nuance isn't confined to people who read the tabloids.


Bless


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 8, 2010)

Diamond said:


> That doesn't really matter.
> 
> It's a very widely and weakly drafted section and as a consequence it provides the judiciary with great discretion as to its application.



It doesn't matter what it says?


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Thanks for demonstrating that knee-jerk reaction and inability to do nuance isn't confined to people who read the tabloids.



People who read the tabs tend to be far less gullible and impressionable than the preachers.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 8, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Bless



Yes, that's correct, you have been shown up. No need to thank me.


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Bless



10 hail maries?


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> People who read the tabs tend to be far less gullible and impressionable than the preachers.



Indeed, they tend not to take what they read in the paper very seriously. Something a few people here could learn from.


----------



## Diamond (Mar 8, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> It doesn't matter what it says?



You don't necessarily construe the section as a whole.

To a certain extent you take each subsection separately.

So it does matter what it says - but it only matters precisely what it says IYSWIM.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 8, 2010)

I seem to have acquired my own little collection of strangely-named satellites. What larks!


----------



## Iguana (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> but the need to point and stare and scream in hate comes from the same place



I don't think it does.  I've always had a suspicion that the level of anger directed at Venables and Thompson has it's roots in guilt.  If we as a society have a duty to protect children like James from what happened to him, then surely we as a society also have a duty to protect children like Jon and Robert.  But nobody did, we all know that there are kids living fucked up lives, but we tend to close our backs to it, as individuals and as a society.  Even if people don't make the connection consciously I think on some level people did but instead of directing the anger inwardly, people just let it spill out onto the two obvious targets.  With the Lawrence case people were left feeling helpless with a state body which should have protected them.

I think there is a huge difference in where the anger comes from, even if it is expressed in the same way.


----------



## Geri (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> 10 hail maries?



What is a hail marie? Is it like a Hail Mary but for mormons?


----------



## CJohn (Mar 8, 2010)

I'm glad to see Jack Straw standing by his priciples and not releasing any details today. 

I think this 'right to know' bullshit is just ugly voyeurism disgused as righteous moralism. Its pretty pathetic really.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 8, 2010)

BBC R4 suggests Venables may have been caught in posession of child porn. 

If the BBC are revealing parts of this issue, it must mean his identity is compromised.


----------



## tar1984 (Mar 8, 2010)

CJohn said:


> I think this 'right to know' bullshit is just ugly voyeurism disgused as righteous moralism.



I haven't read the whole thread, but this is basically my feelings on it.  People are curious, understandably, but should realise it's a legal issue not an episode of fucking big brother.  I'd be interested to know what he did, but that doesn't make it my right.


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

Wait for the Gary Glitter fans to come out and defend him now.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 8, 2010)

You seem to know a lot about this message board, LC1980.


----------



## yardbird (Mar 8, 2010)

CJohn said:


> I'm glad to see Jack Straw standing by his priciples and not releasing any details today.
> 
> I think this 'right to know' bullshit is just ugly voyeurism disgused as righteous moralism. Its pretty pathetic really.



Denise Fergus, James Bulgers mother says she has the 'right to know'.
Why?
No, she hasn't and nor has anyone else have 'the right' !


----------



## yardbird (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> Wait for the Gary Glitter fans to come out and defend him now.



Eh?
ffs


----------



## SpeedSailor (Mar 8, 2010)

anyone hear the 5 live phone in on this?

the piss and vineger coming out of people pores over this when they have fuck all to do with it.

*why *do they want to know what he's done. fucking weird. 

there is some weird victorian fascination going on here that tabloid journalism thrives on. it makes me sick to the stomach. how people buy them every day is scary. 

the tabloids in one foul swoop have fucked up the case against him. how will he have a fair defence.


----------



## Iguana (Mar 8, 2010)

tar1984 said:


> I haven't read the whole thread, but this is basically my feelings on it.  People are curious, understandably, but should realise it's a legal issue not an episode of fucking big brother.  I'd be interested to know what he did, but that doesn't make it my right.



Some solicitor on tv earlier put it well when he said that there is a big difference between information that is in the public interest and what the public is interested in.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 8, 2010)

SpeedSailor said:


> anyone hear the 5 live phone in on this?
> 
> the piss and vineger coming out of people pores over this when they have fuck all to do with it.



No I didn't hear that. Its actually really depressing to hear most people views on the whole issue.


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

Fell swoop


----------



## yardbird (Mar 8, 2010)

SpeedSailor said:


> anyone hear the 5 live phone in on this?
> 
> the piss and vineger coming out of people pores over this when they have fuck all to do with it.
> 
> ...



Yeah.
I shouted at the fucking radio!
Frightening


----------



## CJohn (Mar 8, 2010)

tar1984 said:


> People are curious, understandably, but should realise it's a legal issue not an episode of fucking big brother.  I'd be interested to know what he did, but that doesn't make it my right.



Exactly! I can hold my hands up and say I'd love to know. But as I say its just pure voyeurism, nothing more. And, at the same time, I appreciate that its right that this information is withheld.


----------



## CJohn (Mar 8, 2010)

yardbird said:


> Yeah.
> I shouted at the fucking radio!
> Frightening



Was it that bad? When was this on?


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

Problem is 99 % of the population aren't as clever or evolved as 'you guys'. They are all brainwashed by the tabloids. They need re-educating, or something.


----------



## yardbird (Mar 8, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Was it that bad? When was this on?



Nicky Campbell 9-10am 
On iplayer


----------



## CJohn (Mar 8, 2010)

yardbird said:


> Nicky Campbell 9-10am
> On iplayer



Well if i feel like winding myself up I'll give it a go. Cheers.


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 8, 2010)

Shouted at David Mellor on LBC earlier - I'd figured him as moderately intelligent.
George Galloway was very good on Talk Sport.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 8, 2010)

It's actually the media talking about the media again now; Mrs Bolger said this in the media which was analysed in the media and about which X said this (in the media) which was responded to by Y (in the media), etc, etc. It's a self-generating and self-propagating narrative with no significance other than responding to the latest media comment.


----------



## Looby (Mar 8, 2010)

yardbird said:


> Nicky Campbell 9-10am
> On iplayer



I really don't know why anyone would put themselves through an hour of Nicky Campbell or anything else on 5live.


----------



## SpeedSailor (Mar 8, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Shouted at David Mellor on LBC earlier - I'd figured him as moderately intelligent.
> George Galloway was very good on Talk Sport.



George Galloway is sharp as a razor and debates like i wish i could.

 i dont listen to talk sport bcause of the news corporation links and my listening to it would up the figures.


----------



## yardbird (Mar 8, 2010)

sparklefish said:


> I really don't know why anyone would put themselves through an hour of Nicky Campbell or anything else on 5live.



I was cleaning the kitchen at the time.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 8, 2010)

SpeedSailor said:


> George Galloway is sharp as a razor and debates like i wish i could.
> 
> i dont listen to talk sport bcause of the news corporation links and my listening to it would up the figures.



Listen to the recorded programme without adverts here:

http://couchtripper.com/forum2/page.php?page=6


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 8, 2010)

SpeedSailor said:


> George Galloway is sharp as a razor and debates like i wish i could.
> 
> i dont listen to talk sport bcause of the news corporation links and my listening to it would up the figures.



If you put cling film on your aerial then it won't contribute to the listeners ratings.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2010)

SpeedSailor said:


> George Galloway is sharp as a razor and debates like i wish i could.
> 
> i dont listen to talk sport bcause of the news corporation links and my listening to it would up the figures.



why?


----------



## tar1984 (Mar 8, 2010)

Iguana said:


> Some solicitor on tv earlier put it well when he said that there is a big difference between information that is in the public interest and what the public is interested in.



He must've read Terry Pratchett's "The Truth", where this obvservation is made by William de Word.


----------



## SpeedSailor (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> why?



i listened to talk sport while at work and i got fed up with the tabloid esque style of broadcasting. all morning there was john gaunt moaning about imigrants or whatever was on the front page of the sun. the only balancer was George Galloway which was on on saturdays.

i was made redundant at the beginning of the year and am back at college so dont listen to the radio as much.

i tried cling film on my ariel btw but they got caught up with my sandwiches.


----------



## yardbird (Mar 8, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Well if i feel like winding myself up I'll give it a go. Cheers.



Radio5 Nicky Campbell
Listen to Anthony from Stoke 
0.50.58 onwards


----------



## existentialist (Mar 8, 2010)

tar1984 said:


> He must've read Terry Pratchett's "The Truth", where this obvservation is made by William de Word.


Good book that. Makes some pithy observations on the world of media...


----------



## CJohn (Mar 8, 2010)

yardbird said:


> Radio5 Nicky Campbell
> Listen to Anthony from Stoke
> 0.50.58 onwards



 ...george galloway is pretty good on the other link someone posted.


----------



## tar1984 (Mar 8, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Good book that. Makes some pithy observations on the world of media...



One of my favorites.  'The truth shall make ye fere'.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Mar 8, 2010)

Ch4 news had a talk show host (on screen) and a bod (in the studio).  Talk show host iterates that the public have a right to know and the mother deserves the juicy details.   The bod explains the problem with revealing these details so soon, before any trial commencement, etc.    Talk show host says the victims mother deserves to know.    Bod suggests she wouldnt want her sons killer walking free because of the media's failiures in prejudicing any case being brought forward.   Talk show host mumbles the same nonsense again.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2010)

SpeedSailor said:


> i listened to talk sport while at work and i got fed up with the tabloid esque style of broadcasting. all morning there was john gaunt moaning about imigrants or whatever was on the front page of the sun. the only balancer was George Galloway which was on on saturdays.
> 
> i was made redundant at the beginning of the year and am back at college so dont listen to the radio as much.
> 
> i tried cling film on my ariel btw but they got caught up with my sandwiches.



no, i mean why avoid news corporation media in particular.
and why listen to those people in the first place?
read the news and listen to some music!


----------



## xenon (Mar 8, 2010)

The James Obrien show on LBC 10 today was more interesting. 

What is gained by the general public knowing the details of the allegation. Aside the obvious opportunity to wank on about how they should have been strung up, do gooding liberals,  etc, etc.


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 8, 2010)

Don't know if it was mentioned that Jack Straw referred to Mum as Mrs Ferguson, not Mrs Fergus.

Fucking disrespectful cunt 

Tabloids will be all over that one tomorrow.


----------



## xenon (Mar 8, 2010)

CJohn said:


> Was it that bad? When was this on?




It's always that bad, TBF.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 8, 2010)

Chip Barm said:


> Don't know if it was mentioned that Jack Straw referred to Mum as Mrs Ferguson, not Mrs Fergus.
> 
> Fucking disrespectful cunt



Tbf it was just a slip of the tongue from a useless minister.


----------



## Part 2 (Mar 8, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> Tbf it was just a slip of the tongue from a useless minister.



No! he was obviously taking the fucking piss out of a grieving mother.

How dare he!  

 (just in case you really think I meant it)


----------



## Iguana (Mar 8, 2010)

Chip Barm said:


> No! he was obviously taking the fucking piss out of a grieving mother.
> 
> How dare he!



Yeah, imagine adding the word "son" to the name of a woman who has lost her son.  Bastard!!!!!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> 5. They're cunts


yes, when all else fails it's out with the c word.


----------



## Open Sauce (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> More middle-class london journos saying the scruffy Liverpool proles need to be as civilised as they are in other countries?



More like the baying mob that is the press and it's readers should be a little more civilised.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 8, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> Fell swoop


Subtle!


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 8, 2010)

Melanie Phillips (of all people) made a fair point today against the 'they should have been in prison longer' brigade that, as they were just over the age of criminal responsibility when the crime took place, if they'd have commited the offence a few months earlier the justice system wouldn't have been able to deal with them full stop. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...hould-crimes-James-Bulgers-killer-public.html


----------



## Lakina (Mar 8, 2010)

The purpose of the law is to protect the innocent.


----------



## Wookey (Mar 8, 2010)

I think half of the apoplexy being reported on the streets of Liverpool is a none-too-subtle attempt at distancing themselves from this awful crime.

It was them Eeeeeevil pair what did it, slay them, slay them!!

Well, they say it takes a village to raise a child - and look what Bootle raised.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 8, 2010)

a nasty bit of regional prejudice there wookey


----------



## existentialist (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> a nasty bit of regional prejudice there wookey


Listening to the more vocal representatives of Bootle's apparent moral median on the radio, I think he might have a point...


----------



## Wookey (Mar 8, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> a nasty bit of regional prejudice there wookey



Yup. Their righteousness fucks me off. I used to work on the Bootle Times, and it's soon forgotten how many dozens of people saw those two lads walking around with a distressed and bloodied toddler and did nothing.

Anger is a great antidote to shame, ime.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 8, 2010)

Wookey said:


> Yup. Their righteousness fucks me off. I used to work on the Bootle Times, and it's soon forgotten how many dozens of people saw those two lads walking around with a distressed and bloodied toddler and did nothing.
> 
> Anger is a great antidote to shame, ime.



Interfering with other people's children is not done lightly, if you do interfere with other people's children you open yourself up to all sorts of accusations also ..


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 9, 2010)

Lakina said:


> The purpose of the law is to protect the innocent.



And the wealthy.


----------



## Wookey (Mar 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Interfering with other people's children is not done lightly, if you do interfere with other people's children you open yourself up to all sorts of accusations also ..



That's what Liverpool told itself too.

You'd have thought those two lads had come from Mars via Hades, the speed with which local people distanced themselves from the crime.

Born evil? Not a bit of it. Born poor, neglected, under-privileged and ignored, that's what they were, and that's what you get.

There was a woman on the news earlier, who said: "I was IN the Strand on the day it happened!! IN the Strand!! With my eldest!!"

As though being nearby was somehow a license to wish violence and retribution on this two kids.

I don't find it edifying, that grown adults can be so vicious towards two seriously fucked up kids, and not once (it seems) ask what their role was in creating two murderous little boys.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 9, 2010)

But I have intervened with other people's kids before and got a torrent of abuse for my troubles. From it has to be said, their parents! I think twice at least now before intervening..


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 9, 2010)

Wookey said:


> That's what Liverpool told itself too.
> 
> You'd have thought those two lads had come from Mars via Hades, the speed with which local people distanced themselves from the crime.
> 
> ...



do you think this kind of behaviour is confinded to liverpudlians?


----------



## scifisam (Mar 9, 2010)

Wookey said:


> Yup. Their righteousness fucks me off. I used to work on the Bootle Times, and it's soon forgotten how many dozens of people saw those two lads walking around with a distressed and bloodied toddler and did nothing.
> 
> Anger is a great antidote to shame, ime.



If I'd seen a hurt toddler with two older kids I would have assumed they were taking him home or to his mum after he fell off the slide or something. It's not as if toddlers getting injured is unusual, nor is toddlers being upset, or older kids looking after a younger one. I certainly wouldn't assume that a crime was being committed. 

IIRC some people actually did speak to the boys, and were told that James was their little brother. What were those adults supposed to do then? 

Yet I've often seen that Liverpool should be ashamed for not stopping them. Am I missing something here?


----------



## Dissident Junk (Mar 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> Oh I agree. Hate is the word that I had in mind. Care has nothing to do with it. I find the whole "lock em up and throw away the key" thing terribly depressing and  sadly predictable. I will never forget the news footage of people attacking the police van when they were first taken to court as kids. Fucking disgusting
> 
> I think it would have been better if the news about the reincarceration hadn't been made public at all. This has just created a storm of speculation and space for the "hang em" maggots to crawl out of the woodwork again.
> 
> They were ten year old kids who fucked up really badly. Give them a break and let them start again.



Oh, for fucks sake.

Fucked up really badly? They eradicated another person's life -- that's it, gone, dead, can't undo. You can't unkill someone; you can't reverse the bloody thing.

Give them a break? Who is going to give James Bulger a break? Oh, shit, you can't *because he is dead.*

Don't you get it? A three year old who had to go through that? Do you know what they did to him? Do you? Because maybe if you had an idea, you would slightly change your tune a little bit.

Because it is, oh so, *normal *for a ten year old to put batteries in a toddler's orifices, suffocate him with paint, and then hit him with with bricks and an iron bar until his head is smashed in, and then weight him to train tracks so a train dismembers him -- so there is part of him over there and part of him over here.

Yes, that's _fucking up really badly_, isn't it? It's comparable with, I dunno, twocking? Or maybe getting expelled? Or, I dunno, stealing from a post office?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 9, 2010)

because recounting the gory details stokes the fire of righteousness ennit.


----------



## Dissident Junk (Mar 9, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> because recounting the gory details stokes the fire of righteousness ennit.



Don't be a wanker.

Life is all humans have. The weird thing here is that some people appear to believe you can achieve 'closure' about the murder of your children.

They expect Denise Bulger to accept something they would never dare to argue to other parents.

Do you honestly expect all those Palestinian/Tutsi/Bosnian/pick-any-political-genocide-of-the-last-fifteen-years parents to accept the fact their children were murdered, and just get on with it? That they should let those youths/child soldiers/teenage-gun-wielders get on with it, and live a "normal" life?  

Bloody hell. Why do you think there is conflict in this world?  Because, ten to one, some imbecile has killed someone else.


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 9, 2010)

Wookey said:


> Yup. Their righteousness fucks me off. I used to work on the Bootle Times, and it's soon forgotten how many dozens of people saw those two lads walking around with a distressed and bloodied toddler and did nothing.
> 
> Anger is a great antidote to shame, ime.



Hang on.


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 9, 2010)

Wookey said:


> That's what Liverpool told itself too.
> 
> You'd have thought those two lads had come from Mars via Hades, the speed with which local people distanced themselves from the crime.
> 
> ...



Your showboating
Like some shock jock. Poor people are potential murderers? Who 'created' Shipman, Sutcliffe, Copeland and Brady?


----------



## Lakina (Mar 9, 2010)

You mean 'self righteousness' Wookey?  Righteousness means someone is right.


----------



## Lakina (Mar 9, 2010)

It's easy to ridicule uneducated people, but they are just parents frightened for their own children.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 9, 2010)

Dissident Junk said:


> Do you honestly expect all those Palestinian/Tutsi/Bosnian/pick-any-political-genocide-of-the-last-fifteen-years parents to accept the fact their children were murdered, and just get on with it?



Yes.  Which in fact most of them seem to be doing just fine.

Forgiveness _is_ possible for human beings you know.


----------



## dylans (Mar 9, 2010)

Dissident Junk said:


> Oh, for fucks sake.
> 
> Fucked up really badly? They eradicated another person's life -- that's it, gone, dead, can't undo. You can't unkill someone; you can't reverse the bloody thing.
> 
> ...



Do you think recounting the details of an awful crime somehow makes your argument any more legitimate? 

Thanks for the grief porn. 

I love the way idiots like you always think you are the only ones who know the details of crimes. Because we who believe in a justice system based on compassion and humanity obviously only need to be educated  as to the awfulness of crime and we would morph into a flaming torch bearing lynch mob. 

But you are right of course. I know nothing of crime or of the pain of dealing with loss. If I did I am sure I would agree with you.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 9, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Interfering with other people's children is not done lightly, if you do interfere with other people's children you open yourself up to all sorts of accusations also ..



Especially in a place like Bootle whete, from the sound of them, they'd be selecting your lamp post first and asking questions later...


----------



## Wookey (Mar 9, 2010)

Lakina said:


> You mean 'self righteousness' Wookey?  Righteousness means someone is right.



Thankyou, I've always got those mixed up.


----------



## Wookey (Mar 9, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> Your showboating



Exactly. Just like the many, many Liverpudlians who feign anger and get all retributive on the TV night after night, saying they should have been 'put down' at the time, and Jon Venables is going to get what's coming to him, etc, etc. It's like a professional victimhood. When I cast the light back on them and their responsibilities, it's in response to this unedifying inhumanity I repeatedly see from the good denizens of Bootle.

I think there's a direct connection between the local indignants' willingness to resort to violence to solve a problem - and the two boys' willingness to resort to violence to solve a problem.


----------



## Wookey (Mar 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> do you think this kind of behaviour is confinded to liverpudlians?



No, I don't. I imagine the people of Portsmouth are similar, maybe it's a coastal thing.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 9, 2010)

I don't know enough about the detalis I suppose, but it always strikes me that Mrs Bulger vents all her rage at (what were)  two 10-year olds and never at the parents of the two 10-year olds. Never even slightly, from what I've seen.


----------



## Wookey (Mar 9, 2010)

scifisam said:


> If I'd seen a hurt toddler with two older kids I would have assumed they were taking him home or to his mum after he fell off the slide or something. It's not as if toddlers getting injured is unusual, nor is toddlers being upset, or older kids looking after a younger one. I certainly wouldn't assume that a crime was being committed.
> 
> IIRC some people actually did speak to the boys, and were told that James was their little brother. What were those adults supposed to do then?
> 
> Yet I've often seen that Liverpool should be ashamed for not stopping them. Am I missing something here?




I do see what you mean, and I agree, I would probably have done nothing too.

But none of that stops the locals from feeling guilty at having done nothing, nor ashamed into apoplexy that this wasn't a foreigner, or a madman, or druggie, but two little boys, two of their own who should have been dreaming of football and being cheeky, rather than killing another little boy, another one of their own.

And it's that anger, shame and retribution that I find distasteful and inappropriate in this situation, and yet which the media appear to be reporting as common opinion in the area.


----------



## Wookey (Mar 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I don't know enough about the detalis I suppose, but it always strikes me that Mrs Bulger vents all her rage at (what were)  two 10-year olds and never at the parents of the two 10-year olds.



...and their teachers, perhaps, and their social workers, perhaps.

Those two ten year olds are dead, this man we are talking about now is not that 10-year-old, just like I am not my ten-year old self. I think she's a grieving women with whom no-one wants to disagree to her face.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 9, 2010)

Wookey said:


> ...and their teachers, perhaps, and their social workers, perhaps.
> 
> .



Tory.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 9, 2010)

Wookey said:


> No, I don't. I imagine the people of Portsmouth are similar, maybe it's a coastal thing.



IME, it's mostly a scumbag thing. It's a shame they have to be the most vocal ones.

For all I know, Bootle (and Portsmouth) are full of enlightened people who have better things to do than mouth off about retribution to roving radio journalists, who lead productive and fruitful lives raising their kids properly, and manage to go for DAYS without fantasising about lynching whatever their daily comic has told them is the folk devil _du jour_...


----------



## existentialist (Mar 9, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Tory.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 9, 2010)

Wookey said:


> Those two ten year olds are dead, this man we are talking about now is not that 10-year-old, just like I am not my ten-year old self. I think she's a grieving women with whom no-one wants to disagree to her face.


   I'd agree those two people are no more but, like with the grieving widow of the soldier recently (the misspelt letter from Gordon Brown) the media are using Mrs Bulger to develop a narrative that suits the media.


----------



## LC1980 (Mar 9, 2010)

existentialist said:


> IME, it's mostly a scumbag thing. It's a shame they have to be the most vocal ones.
> 
> For all I know, Bootle (and Portsmouth) are full of enlightened people who have better things to do than mouth off about retribution to roving radio journalists, who lead productive and fruitful lives raising their kids properly, and manage to go for DAYS without fantasising about lynching whatever their daily comic has told them is the folk devil _du jour_...



You're disgusting.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 9, 2010)

existentialist said:


> IME, it's mostly a scumbag thing. It's a shame they have to be the most vocal ones.
> 
> For all I know, Bootle (and Portsmouth) are full of enlightened people who have better things to do than mouth off about retribution to roving radio journalists, who lead productive and fruitful lives raising their kids properly, and manage to go for DAYS without fantasising about lynching whatever their daily comic has told them is the folk devil _du jour_...



Why not go to those places and find out for yourself, rather than condemning them out of the same blind prejedice you're against when it's expressed by the Mirror or the Mail? Think of it as a sort of credit crunch gap year.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 9, 2010)

out of the two positions on this thread im not sure which one i find most objectionable, the sneering, snobbish cunts who can't believe that anyone would be shocked about paedophilia or the cunts who believe that it is ok to treat severely fucked up kids as adults or even as the devil


----------



## Iguana (Mar 9, 2010)

existentialist said:


> For all I know, Bootle (and Portsmouth) are full of enlightened people who have better things to do than mouth off about retribution to roving radio journalists, who lead productive and fruitful lives raising their kids properly, and manage to go for DAYS without fantasising about lynching whatever their daily comic has told them is the folk devil _du jour_...



I'm sure they are, but those people aren't being given a voice on the news.  For all we know 9 out of 10 people who reply to vox pops give a measured and thoughtful response that doesn't suit the media narrative and as such doesn't make it onto our screens.




			
				frogwoman said:
			
		

> the sneering, snobbish cunts who can't believe that anyone would be shocked about paedophilia



What paedophilia?  The James Bulger murder had nothing to do with paedophilia whatsoever.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 9, 2010)

there's a reason i said paedophilia, some people on this site seem to think that anyone who's the slightest concerned about any risk to do with kids is basically a fruitloop


----------



## teqniq (Mar 9, 2010)

I like the latest Steve Bell cartoon in The Grauniad which pretty much sums up my thinking about this sorry state of affairs:


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 9, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> out of the two positions on this thread im not sure which one i find most objectionable, the sneering, snobbish cunts who can't believe that anyone would be shocked about paedophilia or the cunts who believe that it is ok to treat severely fucked up kids as adults or even as the devil



For what it's worth I think the need to prevent legal proceedings being prejudiced outweighs, for now, the understandable desire of the family and the public to know what's going on. But it seems that, on this thread at least, bigotry and unexamined prejudices are being expressed most forcefully on the "enlightened" side of the debate.


----------



## dylans (Mar 9, 2010)

Good article here By Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/08/jon-venables-bulger-justice

He makes the point that cannot be made enough, that the disgusting thirst for revenge and the ugly lack of compassion that accompanies any discussion of this case is a mirror of the lack of compassion that killed that little boy. The baying mob that screamed for the blood of two little boys is a mirror of the cruelty that took Jamie Bulgers life. In fact it is worse, the killers of Jamie Bulger were children, the mob who continue to scream for Venables and Thompson's blood are not.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 9, 2010)

I suspect you're getting literal and metaphorical conflated, presumably for effect.


----------



## dylans (Mar 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> I suspect you're getting literal and metaphorical conflated, presumably for effect.



If that disgusting mob had got their hands on those two terrified little boys during the trial there would have been nothing metaphorical about it.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> If that disgusting mob had got their hands on those two terrified little boys during the trial there would have been nothing metaphorical about it.



Your moral compass needs taking back to Argos. Did you keep the receipt?


----------



## Spion (Mar 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Your moral compass needs taking back to Argos. Did you keep the receipt?


Fuck me, it's been revived


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Your moral compass needs taking back to Argos. Did you keep the receipt?



Evenin'


----------



## Crispy (Mar 9, 2010)

There is not enough popcorn in the world etc.


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 9, 2010)

LC1980 said:


> Banned


Short and sour. Didn't really bother disguising they were returnees.


----------



## dylans (Mar 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Your moral compass needs taking back to Argos. Did you keep the receipt?



Actually I agree with some of your previous posts. Especially when you said this



> i object to some people calling me 'ern' 'ernie' or 'earnie' unless they are allies.



Mr Lynch has never been more appropriate.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 9, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Short and sour. Didn't really bother disguising they were returnees.


You do the math


----------



## fogbat (Mar 9, 2010)

Urban75 - it just jumped the shark.


----------



## tar1984 (Mar 9, 2010)

*subscribes*


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 9, 2010)

Crispy said:


> There is not enough popcorn in the world etc.



A transparent plot to bolster ratings.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 9, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> A transparent plot to bolster ratings.


Your net worth as troll-in-chief has slipped considerably. We had to do something


----------



## London_Calling (Mar 9, 2010)

Crispy said:


> You do the math






LC1980 said:


> Banned


London Calling did indeed come out in 1980 . . . 


ernestolynch said:


> . . . returns


I presume Mr Lynch is a fan of said album


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 9, 2010)

Crispy said:


> You do the math



LC gets banned and ernie appears...


----------



## dylans (Mar 9, 2010)

> Originally Posted by ernestolynch
> Your moral compass needs taking back to Argos. Did you keep the receipt?



He's talking about this one from my profile pic.


----------



## ddraig (Mar 9, 2010)

.


----------



## zenie (Mar 9, 2010)

Well this has moved on a bit  And also wtf??


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> Because we who believe in a justice system based on compassion and humanity ....



The thing is Dylans, notwithstanding your eloquent and touching defence (elsewhere) of a humanitarian justice system, many of us aren't convinced that it works. We've played the "sources" game for years and the best we can say is that there is as much evidence to support a harsh penal system as there is for a compassionate one.

You're "give them another start" comment falls on somewhat stony ground given that Venables has been rearrested. I'll wait for any evidence to be made public but will say that if the reason is of a violent or sexual nature, your compassionate system has completely failed in this case. 

I'm not advocating the execution of kids, of course not. I do though, as you know support capital punishment for the crime of murder by adults, but what to do with 10 year old killers? The murder of Jamie Bulger had sexual overtones and had the two killers been just a few years older, in many countries would have been incarcerated for life. 

If, and it's a big if, Venables has been returned for violence or noncing, would you have retrospectively supported the life sentence that would have prevented it? 

How do you reckon Bulgers mother is feeling now that they were "given another start"?


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> The thing is Dylans, notwithstanding your eloquent and touching defence (elsewhere) of a humanitarian justice system, many of us aren't convinced that it works. We've played the "sources" game for years and the best we can say is that there is as much evidence to support a harsh penal system as there is for a compassionate one.
> 
> You're "give them another start" comment falls on somewhat stony ground given that Venables has been rearrested. I'll wait for any evidence to be made public but will say that if the reason is of a violent or sexual nature, your compassionate system has completely failed in this case.
> 
> ...



Nice one.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Nice one.



Welcome back.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 9, 2010)

now there's a surprise - hullo ern


----------



## editor (Mar 9, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Your net worth as troll-in-chief has slipped considerably. We had to do something


Excellent  

You've got to up your game, Phil. Another Welshman's after your (slipped) crown.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Your moral compass needs taking back to Argos. Did you keep the receipt?



hello ern


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 9, 2010)

This is a similar murder in Norway, handled completely differently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/30/bulger.simonhattenstone


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> The thing is Dylans, notwithstanding your eloquent and touching defence (elsewhere) of a humanitarian justice system, many of us aren't convinced that it works. We've played the "sources" game for years and the best we can say is that there is as much evidence to support a harsh penal system as there is for a compassionate one.
> 
> You're "give them another start" comment falls on somewhat stony ground given that Venables has been rearrested. I'll wait for any evidence to be made public but will say that if the reason is of a violent or sexual nature, your compassionate system has completely failed in this case.
> 
> ...



No therapy is 100% effective. If an addict left rehab and relapsed it would be ridiculous to claim it doesn't work based on the one case. 

Venebles reoffending isn't in itself proof that rehabilitation of prisoners results in more reoffending rates than incarceration alone.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2010)

CJohn said:


> I'm glad to see Jack Straw standing by his priciples and not releasing any details today.
> 
> I think this 'right to know' bullshit is just ugly voyeurism disgused as righteous moralism. Its pretty pathetic really.



I felt quite depressed listening to the news last night and hearing Denise Fergus go on about how she has a "right as the mother" to be kept informed. Justice doesn't, justice *can't*, work like that, however much she (and even we) might like it to.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Venebles reoffending isn't in itself proof that rehabilitation of prisoners results in more reoffending rates than incarceration alone.



Of course it doesn't.



> I'll wait for any evidence to be made public but will say that if the reason is of a violent or sexual nature, your compassionate system has completely failed *in this case*.





What it would do (*if* a violent reoffence is proven), is _bolster_ the case against the rehabilitation of violent criminals.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 9, 2010)

jer said:


> This is a similar murder in Norway, handled completely differently.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/30/bulger.simonhattenstone



That's because their proles read books and talk proper.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 9, 2010)

While I can accept that details shouldn't be realised while there is a chance of prejudicing legal/probation hearings, surely it's a no-brainer that we should be told after that? It's not for nothing that we're supposed to have a system of open justice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2010)

Dissident Junk said:


> Don't be a wanker.
> 
> Life is all humans have. The weird thing here is that some people appear to believe you can achieve 'closure' about the murder of your children.
> 
> They expect Denise Bulger to accept something they would never dare to argue to other parents.


Are "they" asking her to accept closure?
I'd say not. I'd say that the most usual idea expressed, besides "KILL THEM!", has been "let the law deal with this". 


> Do you honestly expect all those Palestinian/Tutsi/Bosnian/pick-any-political-genocide-of-the-last-fifteen-years parents to accept the fact their children were murdered, and just get on with it? That they should let those youths/child soldiers/teenage-gun-wielders get on with it, and live a "normal" life?
> 
> Bloody hell. Why do you think there is conflict in this world?  Because, ten to one, some imbecile has killed someone else.



The odds are closer to evens.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 9, 2010)

> In Norway, where the age of criminality is 15 - as opposed to 10 in Britain - they were treated as victims not killers.


Quite a big difference to here then - that's interesting - I do think ten is too young, not sure about it being 15 tho.


----------



## innit (Mar 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> What it would do (*if* a violent reoffence is proven), is _bolster_ the case against the rehabilitation of violent criminals.



No it wouldn't.

One of these two men is still free, on licence.  His rehabilitation may have been entirely successful.

If it eventually transpires that Venables has committed another violent offence it will have individual consequences for him.  It shouldn't have wider implications for the release of others.  It's an isolated incident.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Mar 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Nice one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2010)

Lakina said:


> It's easy to ridicule uneducated people, but they are just parents frightened for their own children.



I wouldn't label them as "uneducated" either, just because they have a thick accent and might get a bit emotional when asked stupid questions by journos.

Fact is, *anywhere* could have produced Thompson and Venables. It's not the location that mattered, it was the nature of their upbringings, and the fact that *most* inner city area have overwhelmed social services depts that are unable to address all the issues with all of their clients. Yes, the people of Liverpool failed James Bulger, and Thompson and Venables, but so would people from anywhere else, whether those people were educated or uneducated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2010)

Wookey said:


> Exactly. Just like the many, many Liverpudlians who feign anger and get all retributive on the TV night after night, saying they should have been 'put down' at the time, and Jon Venables is going to get what's coming to him, etc, etc. It's like a professional victimhood. When I cast the light back on them and their responsibilities, it's in response to this unedifying inhumanity I repeatedly see from the good denizens of Bootle.


And from anywhere else, if only you broadened the scope of your horizons.


> I think there's a direct connection between the local indignants' willingness to resort to violence to solve a problem - and the two boys' willingness to resort to violence to solve a problem.



I thinks there's little connection, because the roots of the issue of violence differ, unless you're contending that the entire population of Bootle were submitted to the same disrupted and abnormal childhoods as Thompson and Venables?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 9, 2010)

hello ern


----------



## dennisr (Mar 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> That's because their proles read books and talk proper.



and already on form


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Your moral compass needs taking back to Argos. Did you keep the receipt?



Ah, the return of the man of the people.

Thought I could smell something.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> LC gets banned and ernie appears...



It's like magic! 

Or a rash!!


----------



## existentialist (Mar 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Of course it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps ever so slightly. But we don't hear of those released on licence, usually without having had identity changes, who don't reoffend, and who go on to lead quiet lives causing no harm to others. And they are the majority, remember.

I have to say that I don't credit prison with too much of that achievement, because I suspect that most people who go down for murder will probably only ever have committed one murder in their lives, regardless of sentence, but the fact is that, by accident or design, some people DO end up rehabilitated, see the error of their ways, and adopt a rather more upright lifestyle.

As the saying goes, "hard cases make bad law", but the problem is that hard cases also make good Press. Good Press means lots of coverage, and lots of a tendency to paint that tiny unrepresentative minority of extreme examples - like Bulger's killers - as a general problem, and pressure then grows to legislate on that basis. Politicians have to be seen to respond to that pressure, or be vulnerable to law and order sniping from the Opposition (and, let's face it, over the decades, neither major political party can claim any particular edge over the other).

So we end up in the slightly lunatic situation where we're having to be seen to be tough on criminals, while everyone who's professionally involved knows that you have to have a bit of pragmatism and give and take for the system to work at all: the worst prisoner has to be the one who has nothing left to lose, no hope of living for anything better, and doesn't care what happens to him, so it's in the interests of the prison staff and the other inmates that people always have another privilege they can lose. Of course, there are additional softer, fluffier reasons why this is a good idea, too, but I suspect I'll be wasting my time with those here .

Similarly, organisations like the probation service have to almost operate in secrecy because they represent a way of working that doesn't conform to the stereotypical myth of how criminal justice should operate, and is widely held up for criticism whenever something goes wrong, again perpetuating that myth, and that it's only when people start being wimpy and progressive that problems arise.

I suspect that Angry of Tunbridge Wells would have steam coming out of his ears if he knew how much work routinely goes on within the criminal justice system in the way of rehabilitative work and social support. But it's always a resource in short supply, because it's the part of the criminal justice process that dare not speak its name, and tends not to attract high-profile funding.

It's not perfect, and it doesn't work all the time. But it almost certainly operates enough of the time to remove significant numbers of people from being at risk of reoffending. And other programmes help reduce the risk of people offending in the first place. A lot of the benefits are unquantifiable, but if you talk to people at the coal face, including the police, you'll find a high level of support - they know that you can't solve the problem just with big sticks; you need carrots, too.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2010)

innit said:


> One of these two men is still free, on licence.  His rehabilitation may have been entirely successful.



That's a daft argument. You're saying that should this be proven, rehabilitation has failed in 50% of the cases you cite. 

I don't have the answer to child killers. Thankfully such cases are rare and if pushed I'd probably come down on the 'soft-touch' side and support the treatment they've received.

My point to Dylans was more general regarding the "compassionate justice system" that he refers too. 

Since the abolition of the death penalty, violent crime such as those which could have occasioned a charge of murder in less fortunate circumstances, gun and knife crime, has rocketted in the UK. Some will argue that this could be due to other social factors. I believe that it is due (at least in part) to "compassionate justice" fail.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Of course it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not in isolation it wouldn't. You would need to look at all the data of rehabilitations of this nature.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 9, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> For what it's worth I think the need to prevent legal proceedings being prejudiced outweighs, for now, the understandable desire of the family and the public to know what's going on. But it seems that, on this thread at least, bigotry and unexamined prejudices are being expressed most forcefully on the "enlightened" side of the debate.



aye, i've been shocked by some of the posts on this thread, by posters i thoguht better of


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 9, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> aye, i've been shocked by some of the posts on this thread, by posters i thoguht better of



Shouldn't be shocked - it's been standard on here for as long as i can remember - at least it gives me a chance to link to this once more, to show that some people can look at social reality in a political-critical manner rather than just spouting off their own unexamined class-based prejudices:

The Hopeless And The Rest Of Us...



> Generally speaking it was felt that working class women had no business interfering with the policies of the local authorities. Any alleged dumping of sex offenders in their community was none of their business. They should trust the authorities, and if not, at least stay at home. Moreover it was unlikely they could ever be genuinely concerned anyway considering how they brought their kids up themselves. The suspicion therefore must be that their motivation was not civic-mindedness, but rather some form of self-aggrandizement. Certainly whatever the feelings of "anger" expressed, these outpourings were neither representative nor "authentic". No, it was firmly stated these people are - "opposite".





> "Sometimes I am ashamed to be a "leftie" remarks columnist Ros Coward "When I see vigilantism my first thoughts are always; what has the community witnessed, has it seen children's lives destroyed, have they been let down by the legal system? It was no surprise that the spokesperson for the vigilante group in Portsmouth turned out to have been abused herself. When asked why she got involved she said, "How else is anyone going to listen to a common person like me?" They won't." Because as Coward observes with commendable candour, "The left doesn't care about these sorts of people."


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 9, 2010)

not sure i agree with all of this re: thompson and venables and re: immigration butchers, but it does make some interesting points that some people would do well to read ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> The thing is Dylans, notwithstanding your eloquent and touching defence (elsewhere) of a humanitarian justice system, many of us aren't convinced that it works. We've played the "sources" game for years and the best we can say is that there is as much evidence to support a harsh penal system as there is for a compassionate one.


Well, that depends.
Are you talking about the UK, or are you making some sort of comparative case between say, the system in the UK and in the US?


> You're "give them another start" comment falls on somewhat stony ground given that Venables has been rearrested. I'll wait for any evidence to be made public but will say that if the reason is of a violent or sexual nature, your compassionate system has completely failed in this case.


You appear to be missing a single, but unfortunately for you, salient point, which is that there is no current penal modality to treat 10 year-olds any way but with a modicum of compassion. 
As for your attributing his reoffending to a "compassionate system", what makes you think that his detention is the root of his reoffending?


> I'm not advocating the execution of kids, of course not. I do though, as you know support capital punishment for the crime of murder by adults, but what to do with 10 year old killers? The murder of Jamie Bulger had sexual overtones...


It's incumbent on us that we ask ourselves:
Where did those overtones originate?


> ....and had the two killers been just a few years older, in many countries would have been incarcerated for life.


Actually, in "many countries", they wouldn't. Even in many states of the US, they'd have been treated as child offenders until they were 14 or 15.


> If, and it's a big if, Venables has been returned for violence or noncing, would you have retrospectively supported the life sentence that would have prevented it?


That's a ridiculous question to ask. You can only punish for the offence at hand, not for prior offences, and not on the possibility of future offences.
I may not think very much of the criminal justice system, but its occasional *attempt* at being "even-handed" is better than operating on assumptions, as you appear to wish to be the case.


> How do you reckon Bulgers mother is feeling now that they were "given another start"?


I reckon she feels awful, but she isn't the person who gets to decide what is or isn't "right", and under our present system, that's as it should be.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Excellent
> 
> You've got to up your game, Phil. Another Welshman's after your (slipped) crown.



If I hadn't seen pictures of them both (and sorry phil, but lynch is better-looking than you!), I'd start a conspiracy theory about them being the same person, seeing as they share the same "real life" initials.

Hey, maybe jazzz will run with it!


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You appear to be missing a single, but unfortunately for you, salient point, which is that there is no current penal modality to treat 10 year-olds any way but with a modicum of compassion.
> As for your attributing his reoffending to a "compassionate system", what makes you think that his detention is the root of his reoffending?



Yeah, see my response to innit. I don't advocate different treatment of kids to which they've received.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> That's a daft argument. You're saying that should this be proven, rehabilitation has failed in 50% of the cases you cite.


Which doesn't, however, imply that rehabilitation fails 50% of the time _per se_.


> I don't have the answer to child killers. Thankfully such cases are rare and if pushed I'd probably come down on the 'soft-touch' side and support the treatment they've received.
> 
> My point to Dylans was more general regarding the "compassionate justice system" that he refers too.
> 
> Since the abolition of the death penalty, violent crime such as those which could have occasioned a charge of murder in less fortunate circumstances, gun and knife crime, has rocketted in the UK. Some will argue that this could be due to other social factors. I believe that it is due (at least in part) to "compassionate justice" fail.


Since the abolition of the death penalty, the figures for violent crime *have* risen. They've also *fallen*. It's a very difficult web to untangle. On the one side we have material evidence in the number of cases brought etc, on the other hand we have the fact that we have more categories of violent crime than we had 45 years ago, a larger population (where generally research doesn't "equalise" populations then and now to give an accurate percentage rate, and a variation in reporting practices between then and now.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Excellent
> 
> You've got to up your game, Phil. Another Welshman's after your (slipped) crown.



Well in fairness my hands have been tied by being banned from mentioning either Pickman's Model or lesbians.

That doesn't count does it?


----------



## innit (Mar 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> That's a daft argument. You're saying that should this be proven, rehabilitation has failed in 50% of the cases you cite.
> 
> I don't have the answer to child killers. Thankfully such cases are rare and if pushed I'd probably come down on the 'soft-touch' side and support the treatment they've received.
> 
> ...



It's not a 'daft argument', in fact it wasn't an argument at all but rather an attempt to reflect back to you the futility of looking to this case as a basis to make an argument about the treatment of violent offenders.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Shouldn't be shocked - it's been standard on here for as long as i can remember - at least it gives me a chance to link to this once more, to show that some people can look at social reality in a political-critical manner rather than just spouting off their own unexamined class-based prejudices:
> 
> The Hopeless And The Rest Of Us...



Interesting article. Can't say I have class-based prejudices being working class, but there's a lot to be said of dismissing people's genuine concerns and they should put up and shut up and the rise of the BNP as the party listening to their needs.


----------



## dylans (Mar 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> The thing is Dylans, notwithstanding your eloquent and touching defence (elsewhere) of a humanitarian justice system, many of us aren't convinced that it works. We've played the "sources" game for years and the best we can say is that there is as much evidence to support a harsh penal system as there is for a compassionate one.
> 
> You're "give them another start" comment falls on somewhat stony ground given that Venables has been rearrested. I'll wait for any evidence to be made public but will say that if the reason is of a violent or sexual nature, your compassionate system has completely failed in this case.
> 
> ...





> I'm not advocating the execution of kids, of course not. I do though, as you know support capital punishment for the crime of murder by adults, but what to do with 10 year old killers? The murder of Jamie Bulger had sexual overtones had the two killers been just a few years older, in many countries would have been incarcerated for life.



A few months earlier and they would have been considered below the age of responsibility completely. But I'mplicit in your post is a recognition that there is something unique and unusual about this case. The fact that you are not advocating death sentence for kids of that age begs the question why not? 
Why not be consistant and advocate no difference in the judicial treatment of all killers? 

That you don't, shows that you _do_ recognise that this case is unique and that it poses unique questions of what to do. 

So the lessons from this case are limited in terms of the justice system treatment of criminals as a whole. 


> You're "give them another start" comment falls on somewhat stony ground given that Venables has been rearrested. I'll wait for any evidence to be made public but will say that if the reason is of a violent or sexual nature, your compassionate system has completely failed in this case.



That Venables has been recalled has implications for this case and implications for the question of the rehabilitation of children who commit crimes.  I would questionhowever the significance of this case for the rehabilitation of offenders in general. I believe the vast vast majority of people released on licence never reoffend. That shows that it works." If it aint broken don't fix it."and I see no reason why this case should throw a shadow on that process or that principle. Given that you recognise that this case is unique. You shouldn't assume this case strengthens the argument for a more authoritarian judical policy. 



> f, and it's a big if, Venables has been returned for violence or noncing, would you have retrospectively supported the life sentence that would have prevented it?


No of course not. I would guess that this is a failure as a case and a sad example of the consequences of demonising a kid and creating the monster that too many people wanted. Prometheus indeed. If your worse case scenario turns out to be the case. Then I would say that it failed. It wouldn't mean we shouldn't have tried. These were 10 year old kids. We really had no choice but to try.



> How do you reckon Bulgers mother is feeling now that they were "given another start"?



Noone can speak for the mother of a dead child. However I can empathise in this sense. The guy who killed my wife got 11 years for voluntary manslaughter. He is out this year after serving 8 years. 

Now I fought long and hard to convict the motherfucker who took my wife from me and my son. I convicted him. I fought 3 appeals over the years to prevent a reduction of sentence. Her killer was fined 15000 US dollars in addition to his sentence and I fought for 6 years to take every penny off him. I took his house, his property everything. When he couldn't pay I fought to have a year attached to his sentence. I wanted justice and to me that meant fighting for everything the law said he owed. 

So he will walk out in 4 months. How do I feel. I would like him to have served ten but I feel like justice gave him a good whack. 8 years in a third world prison is no picnic. He suffered and yes I take satisfaction in that. I would be a liar if  I said I didn't.

 He comes out to nothing. I heard his mother died while he was in prison. He couldnt attend. He is,I hope, a broken man.  Now I want him to fuck off out of my head and die somewhere. I want to wash him and his poison out of my head. I will never forgive him. Nothing I have written is about forgiveness. But I feel justice is done. 

If I was Jamie Bulgers mom. I would wish them the worst and try and forget them, like I am trying to do with the guy who took someone very special from me and my kid. I hurt him. Justice was done. For me peace and recovery is about driving him from my life completely not continual and ceaseless dreams of vengeance. I got my justice. I can move on. 

But if i was Jamie Bulgers mom, I would also hope I had someone I trusted in my life who could whisper in my ear that I was being exploited and patronised by the media who care nothing for her or her grief.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 9, 2010)

Excellent post, dylans.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 9, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Excellent post, dylans.


Yes, I agree.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> A few months earlier and they would have been considered below the age of responsibility completely. But I'mplicit in your post is a recognition that there is something unique and unusual about this case. The fact that you are not advocating death sentence for kids of that age begs the question why not?
> Why not be consistant and advocate no difference in the judicial treatment of all killers?



Well simply because I believe that children may not have developed a full moral code and should be given the chance to rehabiltate. 

My support of the DP for adults is based on equivalence and retribution. You're against retributive justice for everyone, I'm against it for minors. It's only a moral boundary and morals are a matter for individuals.



> These were 10 year old kids. We really had no choice but to try.



Agreed.



> Noone can speak for the mother of a dead child. However I can empathise in this sense.



I would say that the victims of crime and their relatives are probably the last people that should be consulted regarding _sentencing_.



> The guy who killed my wife got 11 years for voluntary manslaughter. He is out this year after serving 8 years. Now I fought long and hard to convict the motherfucker who took my wife from me and my son. I convicted him. I fought 3 appeals over the years to prevent a reduction of sentence. Her killer was fined 15000 US dollars in addition to his sentence and I fought for 6 years to take every penny off him. I took his house, his property everything. When he couldn't pay I fought to have a year attached to his sentence. I wanted justice and to me that meant fighting for everything the law said he owed.
> 
> So he will walk out in 4 months. How do I feel. I would like him to have served ten but I feel like justice gave him a good whack. 8 years in a third world prison is no picnic. He suffered and yes I take satisfaction in that. I would be a liar if  I said I didn't.
> 
> ...



IIRC, the scumbag that shot your wife did so accidently through a shut door. I congratulate you on your solid persuance of him and genuinely hope you find peace. However whilst I don't advocate execution for manslaughter, I do think that he should spend the rest of his life in prison. 

Part of me respects your compassion and part of me wants to shake you and shout "YOU SHOULD WANT HIM DEAD!". Perhaps that makes you a better person than I, certainly I guess in the eyes of many here .

That said, nothing you've posted changes my view that it is correct that cold-blooded killers should hang and that prison should be a place of punishment as well as rehabilitation (if that is possible).


----------



## dylans (Mar 9, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Part of me respects your compassion and part of me wants to shake you and shout "YOU SHOULD WANT HIM DEAD!". Perhaps that makes you a better person than I, certainly I guess in the eyes of many here .



you've changed your tune


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2010)

Dylans,

I read it before you edited and can only say that I hope you win. Whatever way you go. 

May I ask where the incident occurred?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> you've changed your tune



In what way?


----------



## dylans (Mar 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> I read it before you edited and can only say that I hope you win. Whatever way you go.
> 
> May I ask where the incident occurred?



I'd rather not say too much more about my personal story. It didn't occur in the UK. Perhaps by pm.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> In what way?



you once said something rather odd about thinking less of someone for being able to forgive the murderer of a loved one.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> I'd rather not say too much more about my personal story. Not in this country. Perhaps by pm.



Fair play. Pm on way.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> you once said something rather odd about thinking less of someone for being able to forgive the murderer of a loved one.



Yes, I did say that. 

Not the same though is it? Dylans hasn't forgiven this areswipe as far as I can tell. He just doesn't wish him dead.


----------



## dylans (Mar 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, I did say that.
> 
> Not the same though is it? Dylans hasn't forgiven this areswipe as far as I can tell. He just doesn't wish him dead.



No I don't forgive this guy. Forgiveness has nothing to do with it. For me, erasing him from every aspect of my life is the motivation. To spit out the taste of copper. To truly not care about him anymore. 

I am tempted to tell my lawyer that I don't want to know when he gets out. I know I won't though. I know I have to receive that news. Then it's over. He is dead to me.

One thing about this whole re-emergence of this case that has really disturbed me has been the way that Jamies mother has been courted by the media. When this story has receded from public gaze and the newspapers stop ringing,  . She will realise that she has been used by fakes and that the low toned breakfast tv interviews were fake,  she will be left lonely and wounded with old scars picked fresh. The media have added to the misery of this woman and they should be fucking ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Wookey (Mar 9, 2010)

dylans said:


> ...and they should be fucking ashamed of themselves.



I agree with you, but guarantee it will be quite the opposite.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 10, 2010)

Wookey said:


> I agree with you, but guarantee it will be quite the opposite.



The newspapers are after a story - plain and simple - that's their job.  There are many worrying aspects of this whole case and the media has highlighted them but not in the right way.

Denise Fergus claims she was told that she would be informed of any transgression by these 2 boys by the home secretary - if that's the case (I dont know that it is) then she's entitled to it - unless the home secretary of the time would like to explain why not.  Those that say she's not entitled to know anything now should realise that that's why she's annoyed by this

It's pretty clear from the information that's been leaked that we would have been told nothing had the papers not got hold of this.  It's also pretty clear that the so called terms of this boy's licence had been broken many times before.  That's if you believe the papers - but theyve not been too far wrong so far it would seem.  The handling of his release and monitoring can be justifiably criticised if that is the case.

It begs the whole question of what we would be told and when in any case - and whether we should be.  There are many conspiracy theorists that would have us  believe that Robert Thompson already has committed serious crime(s) since release.  I'm not saying for one second that that is true - but what if it was?  Would the Government admit to making such an error or brush it under the carpet.

The whole issue for Denise Fergus also centres around the fact that she thought the sentences too short - even Mary Bell went to adult prison.  She also thought that the culpability for the crimes - and also the issue of the details of the crimes themselves - were not faced up to during rehabilitation.  Rober Thompson was said to have never shown any remorse or guilt and nor were any issues of sexual assault to James Bulger ever investigated during the confinement.  If the latter is true and Jon Venables is now guilty of any kind of sexual offence then that is a ticking time bomb with the press.

Then there is the issue of the election coming up - this could yet play a big part if it is not handled properly by Labour - of which Im sure they are totally aware.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 10, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> The media have never had a responsibility to do this (except the BBC, which did explain sub judice on Breakfast Time this morning).  Newspapers, commercial radio etc are businesses.  Their only duty is to increase their shareholders profits.


Just because you keep stating that doesn't make it true.

Just because there is no legal / contractual duty doesn't mean there isn't an actual one in terms of their role in society and a balance of rights and responsibilities.  Lots of commercial organisations have a social responsibility.  Many had them before they became fucking fashionable.

They have abdicated all fucking responsibility and become the 13-year old bleating "I know my rights" and demanding their brief and their fucking social worker.

Why you got your tongue stuck up their arse?


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 10, 2010)

Iguana said:


> Some solicitor on tv earlier put it well when he said that there is a big difference between information that is in the public interest and what the public is interested in.


The cunts obviously been reading this thread...


----------



## weltweit (Mar 10, 2010)

It does seem that the media know more than they are letting on. 

I suspect the media know the whole shebang, but are wary of being punished for disclosing. 

However, if the reason Venables was recalled ends up in a court case, I would expect it to come out then, or do they expect to try him in secret to maintain the new identity?


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 10, 2010)

Lakina said:


> It's easy to ridicule uneducated people, but they are just parents frightened for their own children...


... who the media are exploiting and mugging off for their own fucking ends ...


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 10, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Well in fairness my hands have been tied by being banned from mentioning either Pickman's Model or lesbians.


Fuck!

That _really_ narrows down the opportunities to mention cunts.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 10, 2010)

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/being-maxine-carr/4od

This is a show about the nightmare experiences of women mistaken for being Maxine Carr. It shows the nasty fuckwit side of this country: the van bangers and their cheerleaders.

Obviously, calling them "nasty fuckwits" really isnt on. It's snobbish, what stupid self appointed witchhunt scum really need is liberal understanding and love.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Just because you keep stating that doesn't make it true.
> 
> Just because there is no legal / contractual duty doesn't mean there isn't an actual one in terms of their role in society and a balance of rights and responsibilities.  Lots of commercial organisations have a social responsibility.  Many had them before they became fucking fashionable.
> 
> ...


*slow handclap*


----------



## Spion (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Shouldn't be shocked - it's been standard on here for as long as i can remember - at least it gives me a chance to link to this once more, to show that some people can look at social reality in a political-critical manner rather than just spouting off their own unexamined class-based prejudices:
> 
> The Hopeless And The Rest Of Us...


"In any walk of life the worm that destroys you is to agree with your critics to get their approval," says the author, but he _does _agree with his critics/protagonists. All they disagree on is who to uncritically champion or to deride. I see no independent working class voice in this.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 10, 2010)

That old Red Action article linked above sums up the agenda of the liberals on this site to a tee.


----------



## Spion (Mar 10, 2010)

Red Action were just liberals with fists


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 10, 2010)

a middle class teacher speaks!


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 10, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> a middle class teacher speaks!



A middle class social worker speaks!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 10, 2010)

And now a middle class academic speaks; we've nearly got the full set.

None of which means that RA were liberals with fists; which while being a nice turn of phrase is well wide of the mark. Perhaps Spion means they were lefties who weren't leninists; which is no bad thing.

Cheers - Louis (an ex-marxist-leninist) MacNeice


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 10, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> A middle class social worker speaks!



I just find your pose of being a working class champion somewhat ironic, seeing as you're a middle class teacher.  Give it up, it's boring.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 10, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I just find your pose of being a working class champion somewhat ironic, seeing as you're a middle class teacher.  Give it up, it's boring.



Same as it ever was...


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 10, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I just find your pose of being a working class champion somewhat ironic, seeing as you're a middle class teacher.  Give it up, it's boring.



Tell me what my beliefs should be, oh wise one. You are, like me, a white middle-class graduate, a parent and work in the public sector. You show me the correct path to political enlightenment.


----------



## dylans (Mar 10, 2010)

So it starts
Man in hiding after facebook group falsely names him as John Venables

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-father-accused-Bulger-killer-Facebook.html

(sorry about the mail link but the only alternative was the Sun and that is just wrong)

Er...the fact that JV is in prison doesn't seem to bother these people


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 10, 2010)

I'd love it if some famous celebrity from the X-factor or soemthing came out as Thompson or Venebles. Imagine the chaos that would cause in the tabloids and on facebook.


----------



## IC3D (Mar 10, 2010)

^ Update, He's ****** from Scarborough now according to the latest txt, it actually said update like its the Sky newsroom or something, I can imagine a vigilante mob doing u-turns on the M42 as they get this.


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 10, 2010)

i reported a few fucked up facebook groups last night.. most with the above info on, even when people posted links to it not being him.... people still posted the name and text, and what they wanted to do to him...

People are stupid.


----------



## Kanda (Mar 10, 2010)

IC3D said:


> ^ Update, He's ********** from Scarborough now according to the latest txt, it actually said update like its the Sky newsroom or something, I can imagine a vigilante mob doing u-turns on the M42 as they get this.



Why even post it up????!   (unless you just made that up of crse)


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 10, 2010)

I just found the above on Facebook.


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 10, 2010)

I might start telling everyone it's someone who ripped me off a few hundered quid a year or so ago.....


----------



## IC3D (Mar 10, 2010)

Kanda said:


> Why even post it up????!   (unless you just made that up of crse)



Exposing himself to girls on a train, it makes me mad  whose with me.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 10, 2010)

B0B2oo9 said:


> People are stupid.



Mental... 

How do they think this is 'helping' anything?


----------



## Kanda (Mar 10, 2010)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...rongly_Accused_Of_Being_James_Bulgers_Killer_


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 10, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Mental...
> 
> How do they think this is 'helping' anything?



Greif pron init...  oh we should have hung them when they was ten, if i got hold of them i would have strung them up etc etc... 

would love to see what they would do in a room with two ten year old kids... becuase my guess is nothing.. it's all mouth and shit init bruv...


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2010)

Badgers said:


> How do they think this is 'helping' anything?



You honestly think they're trying to "help"?



They're amusing themselves.


----------



## Boppity (Mar 10, 2010)

Kanda said:


> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...rongly_Accused_Of_Being_James_Bulgers_Killer_



The least Jack Straw could do is say that this guy _is not_ Venables. I don't see how that could possibly compromise his real identity.

Clearly the fact that the real Jon Venables is currently in custody and this man appears to be walking free isn't enough proof for some of these idiots.


----------



## tar1984 (Mar 10, 2010)

Kanda said:


> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...rongly_Accused_Of_Being_James_Bulgers_Killer_



This is kinda obvious, but if venebles is in jail and this guy _isn't_, how stupid do these people have to be?  ffs.

e2a: oh, I see bippitybop made this point already.  True, though, they must be right morans.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 10, 2010)

IC3D said:


> ^ Update, He's ***** ****** from Scarborough now according to the latest txt, it actually said update like its the Sky newsroom or something, I can imagine a vigilante mob doing u-turns on the M42 as they get this.



Why would you repeat that rumour? 

If Venables is guilty of whatever he's accused of, then whoever he's hurt (it seems likely that there's a 'victim' of some sort, if it's a serious offence) must be more pissed off than anyone else: they'd almost certaintly want him tried, convicted and suitably punished for what he did to them, and the more this palaver goes on, the less and less likely that becomes. The potential victim loses out just as much as Venables. 

But then, it's bit much to expect certain people to understand that when they can't even understand that anyone they target now simply cannot be Venables.


----------



## dylans (Mar 10, 2010)




----------



## Iguana (Mar 10, 2010)

tar1984 said:


> This is kinda obvious, but if venebles is in jail and this guy _isn't_, how stupid do these people have to be?  ffs.
> 
> e2a: oh, I see bippitybop made this point already.  True, though, they must be right morans.



I think it's really great how the state was able to perform some really impressive optical surgery and turn the brown eyed Venables into the blue/grey eyed Calvert.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 10, 2010)

Iguana said:


> I think it's really great how the state was able to perform some really impressive optical surgery and turn the brown eyed Venables into the blue/grey eyed Calvert.



TBF, that could be coloured contacts. They did well to change his skin tone, though!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 10, 2010)

B0B2oo9 said:


> People are stupid.



No. No. You *MUST* not say that. It's elitist to say stupid people are stupid. To call nasty shits nasty shits is looking down on them as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

Green Party posters all sorted then.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 10, 2010)

what sort of twat sends texts like that? defriend them!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Green Party posters all sorted then.



what have liberal doublethink or the ugly issues around this case got do with the GP? Diddly fuck - that's what?

I've asked you what your politics are before, not that you've said and not that I'd confuse your own opinions with your alliegiences. It's called basic discernment.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2010)

You what?


----------



## 8den (Mar 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You what?



His mechanism's gone.


----------



## Iguana (Mar 10, 2010)

scifisam said:


> TBF, that could be coloured contacts. They did well to change his skin tone, though!



I don't think coloured contacts would be able to make eyes as dark as Venables' look as light as Calvert's.  But obviously he's paler now, he spent half his childhood in jail, duh!  The freckles are drawn on.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 10, 2010)

Badgers said:


> Mental...
> 
> How do they think this is 'helping' anything?


You sort of had the right words.  In nearly the right order.

They don't think.  They're mental.

You could have added a "fucking" and a "cunts" too.


----------



## STFC (Mar 11, 2010)

We should have hung them when they were ten. Killing children is wrong and should be punished by death.
- Pritesh Hathalia, Leicester, 8/3/2010 9:02

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....l#ixzz0hs72G0xG


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2010)

STFC said:


> We should have hung them when they were ten. Killing children is wrong and should be punished by death.
> - Pritesh Hathalia, Leicester, 8/3/2010 9:02
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....l#ixzz0hs72G0xG


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 11, 2010)

frogwoman said:


>



That's got to be a pisstake!


----------



## trevhagl (Mar 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> what sort of twat sends texts like that? defriend them!



I know 3 people who have sent me or shown me these texts


----------



## Wookey (Mar 11, 2010)

STFC said:


> We should have hung them when they were ten. Killing children is wrong



At least you're consistent!!


Erm....


----------



## STFC (Mar 11, 2010)

Erm....my name isn't Pritesh Hathalia, I don't come from Leicester, and I don't leave comments on the Daily Mail website.


----------



## Boppity (Mar 11, 2010)

STFC said:


> Erm....my name isn't Pritesh Hathalia, I don't come from Leicester, and I don't leave comments on the Daily Mail website.



Don't lie. We're wise to your game.


----------



## Diamond (Mar 13, 2010)

Probably the best piece of journalism I've read all year:

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15663332


----------



## existentialist (Mar 13, 2010)

Diamond said:


> Probably the best piece of journalism I've read all year:
> 
> http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15663332



Excellent. And gratifying to see that there ARE sections of the press that will challenge the "throw away the key" orthodoxy...


----------



## trashpony (Mar 14, 2010)

Diamond said:
			
		

> Probably the best piece of journalism I've read all year:
> 
> http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15663332



Excellent article. I see Jamie's mum is now calling for the sacking of the Children's Commissioner for saying that Venables and Thompson were too young to be properly culpable. I feel terrible for saying this but I get the impression she's enjoying being in the spotlight and having her views sought.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Excellent article. I see Jamie's mum is now calling for the sacking of the Children's Commissioner for saying that Venables and Thompson were too young to be properly culpable. I feel terrible for saying this but I get the impression she's enjoying being in the spotlight and having her views sought.


Don't feel so terrible.

Undoubtedly, her loss will have affected her, and she is bound to be angry.

But I think about the parents of some of the children who have been murdered over the last few years in London - people who have shown grace, dignity, and even forgiveness in the face of terrible loss - and I wonder what it is that makes the difference.

Here is a woman who, seventeen years after her son was killed, is still flailing around in a pretty incoherent way, trying to "make right" what went wrong back in 1993. And she wants to make it right by punishing, punishing, punishing...punishing the boys who killed her son, but to the nth degree - even if they'd been given a whole-term life sentence, one gets the feeling that she'd be insisting the rubber hoses be broken out. And punishing of anyone who dares to challenge the mindset she's now rigidly wedded to, with all its "born evil" assumptions and a refusal to countenance the possibility or need of rehabilitation.

I fear that, where others have been able to take such a tragedy in their stride and come out of a horrible experience better people as a result, Mrs Bulger seems to have become locked in a kind of Groundhog Day of bitterness and loss. It's not for us to judge her for that, but I think we have to recognise that her being the mother of a murdered child does not give her views special credence over and above all rational, reasonable thought.

And it shouldn't make her immune from criticism if she makes statements about matters of fact that we disagree with. Personally, I think she's got a fucking cheek trying to insist that public figures be sacked because they dare to say things that, to many of us, are self-evidently true, but which don't happen to agree with Mrs B's (subjective) perception of what is right and wrong.

I don't suppose this will be a popular post, but I really am growing very tired of the media fawning at Mrs Bulger's feet every time she wants to rehearse her anger and hate a little more. They're not helping her, either.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 14, 2010)

I think the media are feeding her grief. I have enormous sympathy for her.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 14, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Don't feel so terrible.
> 
> Undoubtedly, her loss will have affected her, and she is bound to be angry.
> 
> ...



Thanks Boris, those whining Scousers eh?


----------



## existentialist (Mar 14, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Thanks Boris, those whining Scousers eh?



Damn, you must have read the invisible "scouser" I invisibly typed in before Mrs Bulger's name every time I wrote it.

Blast, if it wasn't for you pesky, er, kids!


----------



## trashpony (Mar 14, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I think the media are feeding her grief. I have enormous sympathy for her.


So do I. Horrible to see


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 14, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Here is a woman who, seventeen years after her son was killed, is still flailing around in a pretty incoherent way, trying to "make right" what went wrong back in 1993.


Blaming others to distract herself from the fact that she _actually_ (in part) blames herself anyone?


----------



## trashpony (Mar 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Blaming others to distract herself from the fact that she actually (in part) blames herself anyone?



I keep thinking about that. My son is a bit older than Jamie was when he died. The guilt she must feel must be dreadful


----------



## existentialist (Mar 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Blaming others to distract herself from the fact that she _actually_ (in part) blames herself anyone?


Possibly, though I suspect I'll take enough shit for daring to suggest that Saint Denise of Bootle has the distinct whiff of clay about her feet, so I'll hold back on the surmise...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 14, 2010)

Kids run off in a second. It wasn't her fault although she doubtless has long sleepless nights of 'if only'. I just suspect that the press ring her up at the drop of a hat to comment child on crime and it hardly helps her move on in her life. It must be like a feeding frenzy outside her house with the press.


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 14, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I think the media are feeding her grief. I have enormous sympathy for her.



The media should leave her alone.  She's the last person in a position to make a rational contribution to the discussion, and it does her no favors to intrude on her grief.


----------



## paulhackett (Mar 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Blaming others to distract herself from the fact that she _actually_ (in part) blames herself anyone?



I doubt that is the current specific motivation? I don't think you can apportion blame for someone acting in a way, which at the time seemingly every other parent was prone to do, but any parent would feel some guilt over the death of a child. Action against likely consequences.

I imagine she would like peace and has found herself back in the spotlight through the actions of others (the media, our useless useless media). I can't imagine the debate is healthy for her to witness and I can't imagine it is healthy for her to participate in either. It's a hopeless situation for her.

There is obviously a debate to be had, and whatever time it happens in her lifetime it will bring her pain.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 14, 2010)

Mrs Magpie said:


> It wasn't her fault ...


Indeed not ... but you can see how she may blame herself, especially if we now have "experts" queueing up to say it wasn't Venables and Thompsons fault ...


phildwyer said:


> The media should leave her alone.  She's the last person in a position to make a rational contribution to the discussion, and it does her no favors to intrude on her grief.


And the chances of that happening ... are absolutely sweet fuck all.  More evidence of their cuntish behaviour these days.   

They really _do_ need to be reined in and put back in their fucking box pretty damn soon!


----------



## 8den (Mar 14, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Don't feel so terrible.
> 
> Undoubtedly, her loss will have affected her, and she is bound to be angry.
> 
> ...



Excellent post. Its the reason why victims don't get to decide sentences.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Indeed not ... but you can see how she may blame herself, especially if we now have "experts" queueing up to say it wasn't Venables and Thompsons fault ...



Has anyone actually said that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2010)

8den said:


> Excellent post. Its the reason why victims don't get to decide sentences.



I've tried to make this point over and over since I've been on Urban. If you accept that our criminal justice system is the best we can hope for in current circumstances, then justice *must* be blind, or it won't be justice.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2010)

8den said:


> Excellent post. Its the reason why victims don't get to decide sentences.



They do in other countries and increasingly victim impact statements are considered over here when considering sentencing.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 14, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> They do in other countries and increasingly victim impact statements are considered over here when considering sentencing.


But fortunately not when considering guilt or innocence.

I like the victim impact statement idea - I think it is a very solid step towards the idea of reparative, rather than merely retributive, justice.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 14, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Has anyone actually said that?


Yes.  I did.

I realise you think I'm a cunt and not entitled to actually post anything on here without your fucking permission and all that but, hey, it's a nice day so I thought I'd give it a go ...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2010)

Put the gin down


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 14, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I like the victim impact statement idea - I think it is a very solid step towards the idea of reparative, rather than merely retributive, justice.


I'm not sure where you get that idea ... they are primarily used to seek more punitive sentences (i.e. retribution), though not always.

A Victim Impact Statement is NOT the victim deciding or even suggesting the sentence though - it is simply a means by which the impact of the offence on the victim can be clearly detailed for the judge before they decide on sentence, something that previously wasn't really done at all (at least not in the case of guilty pleas when the victim never actually gave evidence).


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Put the gin down


Oh fuck off with your obsessive stalking you dull cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  I did.
> 
> I realise you think I'm a cunt and not entitled to actually post anything on here without your fucking permission and all that but, hey, it's a nice day so I thought I'd give it a go ...



It's always edifying when you show yourself up for an idiot.

So, to take your little rant point by point:

On what basis do you claim that "we now have "experts" queueing up to say it wasn't Venables and Thompsons fault"?

On what basis do you assume that I think you're a cunt, or anything remotely that useful?

On what basis do you assume that I was indicating that you need my permission to post?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh fuck off with your obsessive stalking you dull cunt.



Only if you fuck off with your stalking fantasies.


----------



## Citizen66 (Mar 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Blaming others to distract herself from the fact that she _actually_ (in part) blames herself anyone?



I remember there was something that someone who used to post here 'knew' about the case which couldn't be posted here etc which alluded pretty much to that. Obvioulsy I can't post it here but neither can I link to it so it's either a) untrue or b) the media never dared report it.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 14, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> On what basis do you claim that "we now have "experts" queueing up to say it wasn't Venables and Thompsons fault"?


It's been the fucking headline aspect of the story for the last few days - the Children's Commissioner and others explaining how 10 year olds aren't responsible for their actions.  I sort of assumed that you paid attention to what was happening in the world ... 



> On what basis do you assume that I think you're a cunt, or anything remotely that useful?


It's blatantly obvious from the way you slag off the majority of what I post and steam in to support when the usual ACAB suspects start gobbing off.



> On what basis do you assume that I was indicating that you need my permission to post?


It's an exaggerated extrapolation made on the basis of supercillious posts like, er, the one I'm replying to ...


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 14, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Only if you fuck off with your stalking fantasies.


If you actually pay attention, you'll see that butchersapron _is_ stalking me from thread to thread, specifically replying to posts of mine despite being told repeatedly that I have no interest at all in engaging with them, frequently having not posted to the thread previously.

Why the fucking mods let the cunt get away with it is a fucking mystery to me ...


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2010)

That is, of course, as mad as the time i was stalking you by starting a thread about another issue that you chose to post on and that i had the temerity to reply to by pointing out the rather large gap in your logic. (Just checked, in the other thread i'm stalking you on by posting 10 times, one of which was to again point out the the rather large gap in his logic.)


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm not sure where you get that idea ... they are primarily used to seek more punitive sentences (i.e. retribution), though not always.
> 
> A Victim Impact Statement is NOT the victim deciding or even suggesting the sentence though - it is simply a means by which the impact of the offence on the victim can be clearly detailed for the judge before they decide on sentence, something that previously wasn't really done at all (at least not in the case of guilty pleas when the victim never actually gave evidence).



In the Youth Referral Panels victims can say what they would like to happen to the offender.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 14, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> In the Youth Referral Panels victims can say what they would like to happen to the offender.


That's not a sentence though - that's a procedural issue, more akin to the police having a conversation with a take-away owner along the lines of "He's offered to pay for the broken window - do you want to sort it out between yourselves or do you want him nicked?".

It is also not the defining view - the professionals will still decide on how to proceed even if it goes against the wishes of the victim.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's been the fucking headline aspect of the story for the last few days - the Children's Commissioner and others explaining how 10 year olds aren't responsible for their actions.  I sort of assumed that you paid attention to what was happening in the world ...


What has actually been *said* by the "experts", rather than what has been attributed to them, is that they're not *fully* responsible.



> It's blatantly obvious from the way you slag off the majority of what I post and steam in to support when the usual ACAB suspects start gobbing off.


It's only "blatantly obvious" to you.



> It's an exaggerated extrapolation made on the basis of supercillious posts like, er, the one I'm replying to ...


Silly boy.
That was condescending, not supercillious.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you actually pay attention, you'll see that butchersapron _is_ stalking me from thread to thread, specifically replying to posts of mine despite being told repeatedly that I have no interest at all in engaging with them, frequently having not posted to the thread previously.


Which *has* to be "stalking" rather than coincidence, obviously! 


> Why the fucking mods let the cunt get away with it is a fucking mystery to me ...


Because they're rational, perhaps?


----------



## yardbird (Mar 14, 2010)

VP 
As an outsider, I do feel that a lot of this ^^^ and that^^^ is quite unnecessary.
Why not leave it?


----------



## 8den (Mar 14, 2010)

Seriously guys you're just splitting hairs here. Is a thread about a 10 year who murdered a 2 year a fitting place to pick a bun fight?


----------



## 8den (Mar 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Put the gin down



It's always edifying when you accuse another poster of being drunk. It really raises the tone.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 14, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> What has actually been *said* by the "experts", rather than what has been attributed to them, is that they're not *fully* responsible.


Pedantic as well as fucking supercillious and patronising, you've got it all!

It was brief summary comment not a fucking PhD thesis ... 



> It's only "blatantly obvious" to you.


No.  It's only _not_ "blatantly obvious" to you.



> That was condescending, not supercillious.


Bollocks.  It was supercillious.  As was that.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 14, 2010)

yardbird said:


> Why not leave it?





8den said:


> Is a thread about a 10 year who murdered a 2 year a fitting place to pick a bun fight?


It's what they do.  

Whenever I dare to post.  (I used to be a cop you see, so I'm clearly (a) racist; (b) guilty of numerous gratuitous assaults; (c) a serial liar and perjurer and (d) as thick as pigshit).

Nice to see someone else is finally getting pissed off about it.

(ETA:  But, for some reason, the mods ignore them despite the various FAQs ... all they ever do when I complain is threaten me about my language ... )


----------



## phildwyer (Mar 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's what they do.
> 
> Whenever I dare to post.  (I used to be a cop you see, so I'm clearly (a) racist; (b) guilty of numerous gratuitous assaults; (c) a serial liar and perjurer and (d) as thick as pigshit).
> 
> Nice to see someone else is finally getting pissed off about it.



Although the impact is rather dissipated by the fact that it is 8den.


----------



## 8den (Mar 14, 2010)

.


----------



## yardbird (Mar 14, 2010)

phildwyer said:


> Although the impact is rather dissipated by the fact that it is 8den.



I take offence.

Why does one mention 'impact'?


----------



## Pie 1 (Mar 14, 2010)

existentialist said:
			
		

> Don't feel so terrible.
> 
> Undoubtedly, her loss will have affected her, and she is bound to be angry.
> 
> ...



Excellent post


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That's not a sentence though - that's a procedural issue, more akin to the police having a conversation with a take-away owner along the lines of "He's offered to pay for the broken window - do you want to sort it out between yourselves or do you want him nicked?".
> 
> It is also not the defining view - the professionals will still decide on how to proceed even if it goes against the wishes of the victim.



It is a sentence; it follows a pleas or finding of guilt for a first offence at court is breachable and forms part of an antecedant history. You're getting confused with the youth restorative disposal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2010)

yardbird said:


> VP
> As an outsider, I do feel that a lot of this ^^^ and that^^^ is quite unnecessary.
> Why not leave it?



Because the man is a hysteric. He goes off on one for no reason at all, and expects to get away with it, and if you question him you're a "member of the ACAB crowd".

I know I shouldn't torment the emotionally-damaged, but I've never pretended to be a nice person, yardie.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's what they do.
> 
> Whenever I dare to post.  (I used to be a cop you see, so I'm clearly (a) racist; (b) guilty of numerous gratuitous assaults; (c) a serial liar and perjurer and (d) as thick as pigshit).



I see that you're making more generalisations against anyone who dares to contradict you, as I've never said or even implied any of the above about you.

In fact, I'm happy to go on record that I don't believe any of the above about you, merely that you're an arrogant cunt with an "eggshell personality".


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 14, 2010)

I think if we follow a 'cause and effect' process then it's difficult to argue for anyone other than Venables and Thompson being guilty.

Also, the reason that Ms Fergus keeps going on is (apart from the fact that she hates these 2 quite justifiably) that the home secretary promised to keep her informed every step of the way - and at that he has failed miserably.


----------



## yardbird (Mar 14, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because the man is a hysteric. He goes off on one for no reason at all, and expects to get away with it, and if you question him you're a "member of the ACAB crowd".
> 
> I know I shouldn't torment the emotionally-damaged, but I've never pretended to be a nice person, yardie.



Still all quite unnecessary though. 
Doesn't get you anywhere and doesn't advance the thread.

And it's pissing me off!


----------



## existentialist (Mar 14, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I think if we follow a 'cause and effect' process then it's difficult to argue for anyone other than Venables and Thompson being guilty.


I don't think anyone IS arguing that anyone other than Venables and Thompson were guilty of murdering James Bulger. The question of what role their family backgrounds may have played in disposing them towards murder is not one of guilt, but an important one to answer if we ever want to be able to prevent these things happening, not just react to them _post hoc_ all the time.



gunneradt said:


> Also, the reason that Ms Fergus keeps going on is (apart from the fact that she hates these 2 quite justifiably) that the home secretary promised to keep her informed every step of the way - and at that he has failed miserably.



I think the main reason she keeps going on is because the Press keep going back to her for her views, which she obligingly supplies. That fact that those views might not actually be relevant to how things actually get done is not seen as that important, compared to getting a nice emotive soundbite out of it.


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 14, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I don't think anyone IS arguing that anyone other than Venables and Thompson were guilty of murdering James Bulger. The question of what role their family backgrounds may have played in disposing them towards murder is not one of guilt, but an important one to answer if we ever want to be able to prevent these things happening, not just react to them _post hoc_ all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the main reason she keeps going on is because the Press keep going back to her for her views, which she obligingly supplies. That fact that those views might not actually be relevant to how things actually get done is not seen as that important, compared to getting a nice emotive soundbite out of it.



I dont think anyone can blame her.  Lets face it she's not the brightest and she (with every justification) wants to see them rot.  I know there's been some stuff on this thread but I can totally empathise with her feelings.  She feels they were let out too early - I reckon the government has tried to keep things under wraps because Venables has broken the terms of his release repeatedly.  I may be proved wrong but I doubt it.

One thing I do wonder though is how much we'd be told if there was a major incident from one of these 2 lads - can you imagine the egg on face?


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 14, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Don't feel so terrible.
> 
> Undoubtedly, her loss will have affected her, and she is bound to be angry.
> 
> ...



I agree with some aspects of this post but her child was taken away and murdered in an horrific manner. Personally I can see why she feels the way she does-I cant imagine that happening to me.

Trust me losing someone you love unexpectedly is one thing-losing someone like this will be something she will have to live with for the rest of her life. I dont blame her for the way she feels no matter how misguided some of her views are.


----------



## 8den (Mar 14, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I dont think anyone can blame her.  Lets face it *she's not the brightest* and she (with every justification) wants to see them rot.



Thats utterly unfair and really obnoxious and superior. 



> I know there's been some stuff on this thread but I can totally empathise with her feelings.  She feels they were let out too early - I reckon the government has tried to keep things under wraps because Venables has broken the terms of his release repeatedly.  I may be proved wrong but I doubt it.
> 
> One thing I do wonder though is how much we'd be told if there was a major incident from one of these 2 lads - can you imagine the egg on face?



Oh well you "doubt it". I occasionally freelance for News stations and I worked several shifts during the last week, and theres such a demented lid on the facts of the accusations, that I edited a piece on the story and I am as ignorant as anyone else on this subject. 

Your claims about Venables repeatedly breaching the terms of his release are about as warranted as the Sun's claims about child porn.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 14, 2010)

Jerk chicken is brilliant, isn't it?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 14, 2010)

8den said:


> Thats utterly unfair and really obnoxious and superior.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The press forced the government's arm in this - of that there's little doubt.  Otherwise I doubt they'd have said anything.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 14, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Also, the reason that Ms Fergus keeps going on is (apart from the fact that she hates these 2 quite justifiably) that the home secretary promised to keep her informed every step of the way - and at that he has failed miserably.


I suspect that she has misunderstood the nature of the "promise" ... the Home Secretary may well be able to promise (on behalf of the police, prison and probation service) to keep her informed of everything _directly connected with the sentence for murdering her son_ ... but they would have no right or power to keep her informed of every other thing to do with their lives.  

I suspect the _fact_ of the recall would be included in such a promise but the exact details of _why_ (especially details of any new alleged offence) would not be, at least not immediately.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 14, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> One thing I do wonder though is how much we'd be told if there was a major incident from one of these 2 lads - can you imagine the egg on face?


Are you _really_ suggesting that if, say, they murdered another kid, the authorities would cover it up rather than have a murder investigation and trial, just to avoid the embarassment?


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 14, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Otherwise I doubt they'd have said anything.


Otherwise they wouldn't have said anything YET

(because they realise (unlike the fuckwit press) that the more that is said now, the greater the chance of fucking up any new trial)


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 14, 2010)

Encouraging to hear so many people argue on a leftwing site that justice shouldn't be conducted in public and that the mother of a murdered child is "not the brightest" and failing to act with "grace" and "dignity" for asking to be kept informed about his murderer's probation.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 14, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Encouraging to hear so many people argue on a leftwing site that justice shouldn't be conducted in public and that the mother of a murdered child is "not the brightest" and failing to act with "grace" and "dignity" for asking to be kept informed about his murderer's probation.



It is about not fucking up the trial 

(although I agree with you you about the 'not the brightest' bit)


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> It is about not fucking up the trial
> 
> (although I agree with you you about the 'not the brightest' bit)



I've said on this thread I support adhering to the contempt of court laws, so long as that is the law (personally I think the notion of contempt is a load of nonsense but that's for another thread).

But beyond that there's a definite whiff of "nanny knows best" to many of these posts - the very notion of open justice or contempt laws being instrumental doesn't seem to resonate much.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 14, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> I've said on this thread I support adhering to the contempt of court laws, so long as that is the law (personally I think the notion of contempt is a load of nonsense but that's for another thread).
> 
> But beyond that there's a definite whiff of "nanny knows best" to many of these posts - the very notion of open justice or contempt laws being instrumental doesn't seem to resonate much.



It's not for another thread at all. It's at the heart of this discussion - whether or not JB's mother or anyone else has the right to know what Venables has been charged with. 

How can you say that a trial wouldn't be prejudiced if the jury had read a load of florid allegations in the press before the trial even starts (if there is one)?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Are you _really_ suggesting that if, say, they murdered another kid, the authorities would cover it up rather than have a murder investigation and trial, just to avoid the embarassment?



Im not sure

I certainly would hope not.

It remains to be seen whether these charges are at all serious.  If they're not then the premise of not wanting to prejudice a trial that the government has used certainly won't stand up.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 14, 2010)

trashpony said:


> It's not for another thread at all. It's at the heart of this discussion - whether or not JB's mother or anyone else has the right to know what Venables has been charged with.
> 
> How can you say that a trial wouldn't be prejudiced if the jury had read a load of florid allegations in the press before the trial even starts (if there is one)?



I think juries are more intelligent than we give them credit for. I don't believe most people are as dumbly passive as people here seem to imagine. That said, the law's the law, and I wouln't want to see Venables walking the street because someone published something they weren't allowed to.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 14, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> I think juries are more intelligent than we give them credit for. I don't believe most people are as dumbly passive as people here seem to imagine. That said, the law's the law, and I wouln't want to see Venables walking the street because someone published something they weren't allowed to.



It's not about intelligence. It's about prejudicing opinion. If I were on a jury where a guy was accused of rape and I knew that he had been accused of it a number of times but never convicted but had been convicted of sexual assault, I'd be much more likely to think he was guilty. That's nothing to do with stupidity, it's to do with the way that the human brain works. You can't switch off a piece of information, whether you want to or not.


----------



## 8den (Mar 14, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> I think juries are more intelligent than we give them credit for. I don't believe most people are as dumbly passive as people here seem to imagine.



Barristers need to work off the assumption that juries and jurors are idiots. 

A common problem among jurors in this day and age is the "CSI effect". Jurors   now expect every case to have complex and definitive forensic evidence, delivered with complicated visuals. 

While I appreciate many, if not most of us, are smarter than we're given credit, no barrister wants to lose a case because a juror didn't understand a point or a concept. 

I've testified in several high profile criminal assault cases, so while I'm not an expert in the law or jury trials, it is my experience.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I dont think anyone can blame her.  Lets face it she's not the brightest and she (with every justification) wants to see them rot.  I know there's been some stuff on this thread but I can totally empathise with her feelings.  She feels they were let out too early


That's her opinion. But just because she happens to be the mother of the boy who was murdered, it doesn't follow that her opinion is any more representative of the facts.



gunneradt said:


> I reckon the government has tried to keep things under wraps because Venables has broken the terms of his release repeatedly.  I may be proved wrong but I doubt it.


I doubt you will be proved right - I imagine that this case is sufficiently unprecedented as to ensure that everyone's doing things pretty much by the book.



gunneradt said:


> One thing I do wonder though is how much we'd be told if there was a major incident from one of these 2 lads - can you imagine the egg on face?


What egg on face? Nobody's done any shady deals here - the boys were released on licence, as part of a properly executed judicial process. We release prisoners every day, and some go on to reoffend: that's not an argument for keeping everyone we imprison locked up against the possibility that they might.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2010)

Grandma Death said:


> I agree with some aspects of this post but her child was taken away and murdered in an horrific manner. Personally I can see why she feels the way she does-I cant imagine that happening to me.


I can see why she feels the way she does, yes. But that doesn't mean I think that her way of coping is the best one for her, or anyone else. And I don't feel that the Press's use of her as a convenient way to keep a non-story staggering a long is ethical or fair to her.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 15, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Encouraging to hear so many people argue on a leftwing site that justice shouldn't be conducted in public and that the mother of a murdered child is "not the brightest" and failing to act with "grace" and "dignity" for asking to be kept informed about his murderer's probation.


If this is, as you claim, a "leftwing" site, it doesn't follow that everyone on it is leftwing. I'm not, and some of the words in scare quotes I see you've selected are words I recognise as mine.

Your point, caller?


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 15, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> It remains to be seen whether these charges are at all serious.  If they're not then the premise of not wanting to prejudice a trial that the government has used certainly won't stand up.


There is presently an _investigation_.  That is based on _suspected_ offences.  The seriousness of those offences is irrelevant - fair trial issues apply no matter how serious, or minor the charge.  And it will be absolutely irrelevant if, as a result of the investigation, it is decided there is insufficient evidence to lay charges.

What will need to be considered is simply whether there were some suspected criminal offences and, if so, whether there was an investigation under way to see if sufficient evidence to lay charges could be found.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 15, 2010)

8den said:


> Jurors   now expect every case to have complex and definitive forensic evidence, delivered with complicated visuals.


As do half the fucking lawyers too ...


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 16, 2010)

trashpony said:


> It's not about intelligence. It's about prejudicing opinion. If I were on a jury where a guy was accused of rape and I knew that he had been accused of it a number of times but never convicted but had been convicted of sexual assault, I'd be much more likely to think he was guilty. That's nothing to do with stupidity, it's to do with the way that the human brain works. You can't switch off a piece of information, whether you want to or not.



The legal system isn't all about you, I'm afraid. The fact remains that the entire notion of contempt of court is completely anachronistic in the Google age and the law should catch up.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 16, 2010)

existentialist said:


> If this is, as you claim, a "leftwing" site, it doesn't follow that everyone on it is leftwing. I'm not,



That much is obvious.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 16, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> The legal system isn't all about you, I'm afraid. The fact remains that the entire notion of contempt of court is completely anachronistic in the Google age and the law should catch up.



sequester jurors?


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 16, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> sequester jurors?



The opposite. Give them all the facts. Direct them as to what the law is. The world won't collapse.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 16, 2010)

The slag-offs of Denise Ferguson are really depressing and missing the point. She is at liberty to say what the hell she likes after what she has been through just as we are at liberty to disagree with her, which I broadly do.

Slagging her off is far worse than what I am often accused of (looking down on people). Her critics would not have an opinion on her at all but for her horrendous experience.

The real focus of our ire needs to be the disgusting tabloid press who have used her plight and emotion to shift copy, and the consumers of same who are vanbanger wannabees and emotional vultures.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> That much is obvious.



Which rather holes your "argument" below the waterline, then...


----------



## existentialist (Mar 16, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The slag-offs of Denise Ferguson are really depressing and missing the point. She is at liberty to say what the hell she likes after what she has been through just as we are at liberty to disagree with her, which I broadly do.
> 
> Slagging her off is far worse than what I am often accused of (looking down on people). Her critics would not have an opinion on her at all but for her horrendous experience.
> 
> The real focus of our ire needs to be the disgusting tabloid press who have used her plight and emotion to shift copy, and the consumers of same who are vanbanger wannabees and emotional vultures.


She certainly doesn't need slagging off, that's for sure.

But she is voicing pretty controversial opinions which many people - often in a rather better position to know than simply being the mother of a murdered child - disagree with. Should we simply not challenge her account of things?

Some people here have been "slagging off" Mrs Fergus. Far more have been expressing reservations about her views and slagging off the Press - so is that also unacceptable?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 16, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Far more have been expressing reservations about her views and slagging off the Press - so is that also unacceptable?



Of course it's acceptable. Play the ball innit. Except where the press are concerned where we should play the ball and the man. And it really is THE MAN.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 16, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Which rather holes your "argument" below the waterline, then...



That you're a prick? No it doesn't, you're just a different brand of prick.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 16, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> The real focus of our ire needs to be the disgusting tabloid press who have used her plight and emotion to shift copy, and the consumers of same who are vanbanger wannabees and emotional vultures.



Everyone who picks up the Mirror or the Star for the telly guide or the sport on a Saturday is a vanbanger wanabee and emotional vulture.

And you wonder why you get a slagging on here.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 16, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Everyone who picks up the Mirror or the Star for the telly guide or the sport on a Saturday is a vanbanger wanabee and emotional vulture.
> 
> And you wonder why you get a slagging on here.



Straw men - that's a reason for lots of slagging here.

Front pages matter - capitlaslists supply to a percieved demand. Millions of people appear to want vanbanging fury. Some would rather flame those that say so than face up to the ugly truth.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 16, 2010)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Straw men - that's a reason for lots of slagging here.
> 
> Front pages matter - capitlaslists supply to a percieved demand. Millions of people appear to want vanbanging fury. Some would rather flame those that say so than face up to the ugly truth.



My dad gets the Express on weekdays because there's some sort of 15p voucher offer in Scotland and the Mail on Saturdays because it has the biggest TV guide. As a Sinn Fein sympathiser his politics aren't what you'd call in accordance with either title and I've never heard him expressing a demand for Diana conspiracy theories or articles about how women going to work makes them infertile respectively.

Most working class people take the tabloids far less seriously than you appear to.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 16, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> The legal system isn't all about you, I'm afraid. The fact remains that the entire notion of contempt of court is completely anachronistic in the Google age and the law should catch up.



What have I got to do with it? I was just trying to explain in terms that you might find easy to understand. 

That's not a fact, that's your opinion.


----------



## Grandma Death (Mar 16, 2010)

existentialist said:


> I can see why she feels the way she does, yes. But that doesn't mean I think that her way of coping is the best one for her, or anyone else. And I don't feel that the Press's use of her as a convenient way to keep a non-story staggering a long is ethical or fair to her.



My son is three years old...just a year older than Bulger. If that happened to me the last thing I'd be worried about was how somebody viewed the way I was dealing with my grief.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> The legal system isn't all about you, I'm afraid. The fact remains that the entire notion of contempt of court is completely anachronistic in the Google age and the law should catch up.



Contempt of court doesn't just cover _sub judice_, so "the entire notion" is not anachronistic.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> The opposite. Give them all the facts. Direct them as to what the law is. The world won't collapse.



Except that if a judge gives (what appears to be) too much direction, the defence start rubbing their hands at having grounds for a re-trial, if necessary.


----------



## Garek (Mar 17, 2010)

"BREAKING NEWS! EXPERT APOLOGISES FOR DARING TO GIVE EXPERT OPINION" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8572028.stm


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 17, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> The legal system isn't all about you, I'm afraid. The fact remains that the entire notion of contempt of court is completely anachronistic in the Google age and the law should catch up.



It's not about contempt of court.  It's about any information possibly prejudicing jurors, leaving the defendant's solicitor able to argue it was an unfair trial, possibly leading to the defendant to walk free.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 17, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> It's not about contempt of court.  It's about any information possibly prejudicing jurors, leaving the defendant's solicitor able to argue it was an unfair trial, possibly leading to the defendant to walk free.



I'm talking about the Contempt of Court Act 1981 which covers the so-called issue you mention - and which was, of course, drafted at a time when reporting restictions on the mainstream media were enough to keep an item of information from being widely disseminated.

People aren't thick. They can cope with a judge saying to them, "you may have read in newspaper/website x that the defendant did y in the past. It is/isn't relevant to your deliberations". The law should catch up with reality.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 17, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> People aren't thick. They can cope with a judge saying to them, "you may have read in newspaper/website x that the defendant did y in the past. It is/isn't relevant to your deliberations"



Except people _are_ incredibly bad at coping with stuff like that.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 17, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> People aren't thick. They can cope with a judge saying to them, "you may have read in newspaper/website x that the defendant did y in the past. It is/isn't relevant to your deliberations". The law should catch up with reality.


They don't have to be thick for subtle prejudices to form. There are enough psychological experiments to demonstrate things like confirmation bias, subtle unconscious prejudice, and so on, that it is possible for a defence lawyer to say that there is a possibility that the trial _might_ be compromised, no matter how brainy the jury might be (or might consider itself to be)...


----------



## aylee (Mar 17, 2010)

Garek said:


> "BREAKING NEWS! EXPERT APOLOGISES FOR DARING TO GIVE EXPERT OPINION" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8572028.stm





I was hoping she would hold out and calmly state that she saw no need to apologise for attempting to start a debate on an important subject that has importance way beyond the tragedy of the Bulger case.


----------



## trashpony (Mar 17, 2010)

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/t...article7055816.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

Quite a good article about whether JV can have a fair trial


----------



## aylee (Mar 17, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> People aren't thick. They can cope with a judge saying to them, "you may have read in newspaper/website x that the defendant did y in the past. It is/isn't relevant to your deliberations". The law should catch up with reality.





beesonthewhatnow said:


> Except people _are_ incredibly bad at coping with stuff like that.



Indeed they are.  Trevor Gove's otherwise uplifting book "The Juryman's Tale" contains a depressing passage in which he states that after he and his fellow jurors had deliberated carefully for many hours over the defendants' guilt, when they potted them and stayed around for sentencing, they were horrified to hear of the defendants' previous and thought that if they had only known about the previous, they would have found them guilty much sooner rather than poring over the evidence about the offence for which the defendants were on trial.

And now, of course, the prosecution can adduce evidence of 'bad character' (not just previous convictions, but other conduct as well) to bolster its case in certain circumstances.  I remain of the view that this is inappropriate except in cases where the other conduct is so strikingly similar that it is logically supportive of the defendant having committed similar conduct which is the subject of the prosecution.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 17, 2010)

aylee said:


> I was hoping she would hold out and calmly state that she saw no need to apologise for attempting to start a debate on an important subject that has importance way beyond the tragedy of the Bulger case.



Yes, I agree. This is a terrible capitulation to all the faux-loving-kindness and tears-on-tap mentalities that the media loves to pander to: "whatever we do, don't let's offend St Denise".

A bad day for truth and grownup debates. A good day for media stereotypemongering and convenient realities


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 17, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> The fact remains that the entire notion of contempt of court is completely anachronistic in the Google age and the law should catch up.


Alternatively the fucking juvenile halfwits we seem to be breeding could grow up and realise that instant gratifiation simply isn't possible in all spheres of life ...


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 17, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Give them all the facts.


And the non-facts the fucking tabloids and blogs print ...


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 18, 2010)

existentialist said:


> They don't have to be thick for subtle prejudices to form. There are enough psychological experiments to demonstrate things like confirmation bias, subtle unconscious prejudice, and so on, that it is possible for a defence lawyer to say that there is a possibility that the trial _might_ be compromised, no matter how brainy the jury might be (or might consider itself to be)...



Then the law should be clarified to prevent defence lawyers talking in psychobabble.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 18, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Then the law should be clarified to prevent defence lawyers talking in psychobabble.



Oh, you mean force them to ignore the truth?

Yeah, I can see how that could go down well...


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 18, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Oh, you mean force them to ignore the truth?
> 
> Yeah, I can see how that could go down well...


----------



## existentialist (Mar 18, 2010)

Ah. OK, I think I can see where your prejudices are coming from now...


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 18, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> My dad gets the Express on weekdays because there's some sort of 15p voucher offer in Scotland and the Mail on Saturdays because it has the biggest TV guide. As a Sinn Fein sympathiser his politics aren't what you'd call in accordance with either title and I've never heard him expressing a demand for Diana conspiracy theories or articles about how women going to work makes them infertile respectively.
> 
> Most working class people take the tabloids far less seriously than you appear to.



Cool


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 18, 2010)

existentialist said:


> Ah. OK, I think I can see where your prejudices are coming from now...



I'll admit I don't know what you mean but I'm sure it's cutting.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 18, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> I'll admit I don't know what you mean but I'm sure it's cutting.


You wouldn't believe it. Saucers of milk, the whole caboodle.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And the non-facts the fucking tabloids and blogs print ...


Too fucking difficult for you, eh?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 18, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> I'm talking about the Contempt of Court Act 1981 which covers the so-called issue you mention - and which was, of course, drafted at a time when reporting restictions on the mainstream media were enough to keep an item of information from being widely disseminated.
> 
> People aren't thick. They can cope with a judge saying to them, "you may have read in newspaper/website x that the defendant did y in the past. It is/isn't relevant to your deliberations". The law should catch up with reality.



You're missing the point.  It's about possibly allowing the defence solicitors to argue an unfair trial.  Then the defendant walks free.  That's what you want?


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 19, 2010)

ok, sorry but just saw this in the shop at work.. and well im fooking amazed...



> ARMED cops gave James Bulger killer Jon Venables just five minutes to pack before hauling him away for questioning yesterday.
> The monster was seized in a dawn swoop as he lay in his prison bed.



WTF? why 6am, why armed cops?? i mean really WFT?!?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2898777/Armed-police-swoop-on-Venables.html


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 19, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You're missing the point.  It's about possibly allowing the defence solicitors to argue an unfair trial.  Then the defendant walks free.  That's what you want?



And you're missing my point - I'm saying the law should be changed to prevent defence briefs using this argument. Not that papers should publish under existing law and be damned - I've been quite clear on that.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Too fucking difficult for you, eh?



Talking to yourself, Dixon?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 19, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> And you're missing my point - I'm saying the law should be changed to prevent defence briefs using this argument. Not that papers should publish under existing law and be damned - I've been quite clear on that.



I don't think the law could be changed, as it can logically be argued that information can pre-judge a trial.  Anyway, you're still missing the point.  The law is as it stands now.  Arguing for some hypothetical change is fantasy.  Why not deal with what the reality actually is?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 19, 2010)

B0B2oo9 said:


> ok, sorry but just saw this in the shop at work.. and well im fooking amazed...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I note the dehumanising language as well.  Human beings do these sorts of things, not monsters.


----------



## Diamond (Mar 19, 2010)

B0B2oo9 said:


> ok, sorry but just saw this in the shop at work.. and well im fooking amazed...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Terrorism, innit.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 19, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> I don't think the law could be changed, as it can logically be argued that information can pre-judge a trial.  Anyway, you're still missing the point.  The law is as it stands now.  Arguing for some hypothetical change is fantasy.  Why not deal with what the reality actually is?



Well it can be changed - other countries don't have the contempt laws that we do. What can and can't be disclosed pre-trial varies from juristiction to juristiction and there are plenty of countries more liberal than we are about this.

As for it being fantasy - I'm arguing for a technical change in the law, not the wholesale abolition of wage labour or whatever. As for dealing with reality - I mentioned it was my opinion in passing and said I didn't want to derail, but trashpony said this was at the heart of what the thread was about and urged me to expand. People should make up their minds.... I've been clear that, in the Venables case with the law as it currently is, the papers shouldn't do anything that would scupper any future trial/probation hearing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 19, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> And you're missing my point - I'm saying the law should be changed to prevent defence briefs using this argument.


What a great idea!
Let's change laws because, from one direction anyway, they're inconvenient!
That'll set a great precedent for further amendments!


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 19, 2010)

B0B2oo9 said:


> WTF? why 6am, why armed cops?? i mean really WFT?!?


In view of the fucking shite media coverage and the undoubted thousands of death threats ... having a high security escort when moving him from prison, and doing it without notice and at a quiet time to minimise the chances of word leaking out and any reaction or threat materialising sounds like a justifiable decision, if a little paranoid / pessimistic.

Imagine the shit storm if he escaped / was murdered ...


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 19, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Talking to yourself, Dixon?


So that's a yes then ... 

Another know nothing gobshite internet warrior ... just what this fucking place needs ...


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 19, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Let's change laws because, from one direction anyway, they're inconvenient!


I can't see why you have any difficulty with this.  Why the _fuck_ should the tabloids and they fuckwit readers be made to wait for their salacious details just so justice might stand half a chance!  That's so fucking yesterday!


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So that's a yes then ...
> 
> Another know nothing gobshite internet warrior ... just what this fucking place needs ...



I'm sorry but I honestly don't know who or what this is directed at - in the post I quoted, you were quoting yourself. Glad to be of service.

I'm calling for a change in the law, not for the law to be broken; there's been quite a lot of indignation in response to what I've posted but no-one has actually backed up with argument the assertion that anti-prejudice/contempt laws are meaningful or effective.


----------



## cogg (Mar 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So that's a yes then ...
> 
> *Another know nothing gobshite internet warrior *... just what this fucking place needs ...



You'd know. Especially pretending you used to be a plod.


----------



## existentialist (Mar 19, 2010)

cogg said:


> You'd know. Especially pretending you used to be a plod.


He's very knowledgeable for a pretend copper.

Most people who hate d_b hate him because he WAS a copper, and because he's mad enough to post on here from a police perspective (coppers on here are supposed to be a) strangely right-on, eg Brian Paddick, or b) a comedy copper, eg PBP  ). I don't agree with all of his opinions, but when detective boy's talking legal factual, I think it's a fool who doesn't listen.

And he's not by any means, from what I read of what he writes, the toe-the-party-line reactionary Laura Norder hard-on merchant he seems to get characterised as being a lot of the time.

I do reckon he could do with a little brushing up on the finer points of conflict management, though...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 19, 2010)

heheheheheh i like detective p he aways gives good avive


----------



## Ranbay (Mar 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In view of the fucking shite media coverage and the undoubted thousands of death threats ... having a high security escort when moving him from prison, and doing it without notice and at a quiet time to minimise the chances of word leaking out and any reaction or threat materialising sounds like a justifiable decision, if a little paranoid / pessimistic.
> 
> Imagine the shit storm if he escaped / was murdered ...



yeah i know why they would be armed... im tlaking more about the way it's reported...


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 20, 2010)

cogg said:


> You'd know. Especially pretending you used to be a plod.


Fuckwit.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 20, 2010)

existentialist said:


> And he's not by any means, from what I read of what he writes, the toe-the-party-line reactionary Laura Norder hard-on merchant he seems to get characterised as being a lot of the time.


Thank you ... it's nice to know _someone_ actually reads what I post rather than instantly frothing at the mouth and posting some knee-jerk acab bollocks based on what they _assume_ I've written ...  



> I do reckon he could do with a little brushing up on the finer points of conflict management, though...


I'm fine at conflict management, thanks (I'm a MICM and I teach it) ... I just that I _choose_ not to use the technques with the fuckwits here.  It's _far_ more fun and some poeple _need_ some fucks thrown into them!!


----------



## Jonti (Mar 20, 2010)

cogg said:


> You'd know. Especially pretending you used to be a plod.




Surely you concede he's most convincing in his exasperated authoritarian impatience. That would make him either a very talented luvvie, or what he says he is.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 20, 2010)

B0B2oo9 said:


> yeah i know why they would be armed... im tlaking more about the way it's reported...


That was certainly bizarre  ... "swoop" ??!!?!!? ... surely "appointment made to collect prisoner with prison governor, arranged (as usual) for an early hour before all the prisoners were up and about to minimise disruption to prison routine and to minimise rumours, etc. circulating about the identity of the prisoner" ...


----------



## Main Street (Mar 20, 2010)

*Cries Unheard*

It was so far back in the Thread that I can't find it but someone recommended this book. 

I got it from the library. Cover to cover in a few days. I still don't know if this is true for the two killers of James Bulger but for Mary Bell she had a horrific life. I wanted to know the why. This book provided the answer.

Thanks to whoever put me onto it. 

I am now reading Pat Barker's Border Crossing (fiction), the last book is en route. 

Thank you.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 20, 2010)

Main Street said:


> ... book ... library ...


I fear you may have to explain these phenomena for many posters ...


----------



## Main Street (Mar 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I fear you may have to explain these phenomena for many posters ...



i like your banter!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I can't see why you have any difficulty with this.  Why the _fuck_ should the tabloids and they fuckwit readers be made to wait for their salacious details just so justice might stand half a chance!  That's so fucking yesterday!



I'm old-fashioned.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> I'm sorry but I honestly don't know who or what this is directed at - in the post I quoted, you were quoting yourself. Glad to be of service.
> 
> I'm calling for a change in the law, not for the law to be broken; there's been quite a lot of indignation in response to what I've posted but no-one has actually backed up with argument the assertion that anti-prejudice/contempt laws are meaningful or effective.



You haven't made an argument _per se_ about issues of meaning or effectiveness for people to make their points against. All you've done is blather that the law should be changed. Why expect people to make time to elucidate their arguments when you haven't been arsed to do so yourself?


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 20, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm old-fashioned.


This place is getting more like Last of the Summer Wine every day ...


----------



## 8den (Mar 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> This place is getting more like Last of the Summer Wine every day ...



I'm pretty sure I just saw Mrs Quoad, Editor and Butchers going past in a bathtub on wheels.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 20, 2010)

8den said:


> I'm pretty sure I just saw Mrs Quoad, Editor and Butchers going past in a bathtub on wheels.


Oh dear ... sounds like there'll be a new server upgrade appeal coming soon ...


----------



## existentialist (Mar 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh dear ... sounds like there'll be a new server upgrade appeal coming soon ...


That's what you might think, only the bathtub crashed out of control on a steep hill, end editor is now up-ended in a midden with his legs waving about comically in the air.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 20, 2010)

existentialist said:


> ... in a midden


Would that be the midden created by cleaning out all the shit and straw(men) from the boards?


----------



## citygirl (Mar 23, 2010)

Dunno if anyone's seen this... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/07/jon-venables-confessed-identity

 man that sounds like it's fucked him up for life.. so much for "rehabilitation"... :|


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 21, 2010)

So apparently it was nonceing, or at least nonceing by proxy.  If anyone gives a fuck,  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10369277.stm


----------



## weltweit (Jun 21, 2010)

Teaboy said:


> So apparently it was nonceing, or at least nonceing by proxy.  If anyone gives a fuck,  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10369277.stm



Indeed, he did not have many images but he had some and he put them on a peer to peer network so others could see them, though there is no evidence that they did. 

Something a bit odd about a child murderer suddenly finding kids attractive, or have I got that wrong?


----------



## Geri (Jun 21, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Something a bit odd about a child murderer suddenly finding kids attractive, or have I got that wrong?



What makes you think it is suddenly?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 21, 2010)

It is assuming that murdering a kid is driven by hatred rather than being an extension of a psycho-sexual desire for dominance.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 21, 2010)

Geri said:


> What makes you think it is suddenly?



Indeed, good point.



DotCommunist said:


> It is assuming that murdering a kid is driven by hatred rather than being an extension of a psycho-sexual desire for dominance.



Well, there perhaps may be it... 

I supposed that adults attracted to kids would not intend to harm them, but that is perhaps an assumption too far..


----------



## citygirl (Jun 21, 2010)

weltweit said:


> Indeed, good point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There was the thought that James was perhaps subjected to *something* more than was reported.  But nothing could be proved, so it was never a charge that was proposed....


----------



## trashpony (Jun 21, 2010)

weltweit said:


> I supposed that adults attracted to kids would not intend to harm them, but that is perhaps an assumption too far..



Do you not think raping a child is harming them?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 21, 2010)

trashpony said:


> Do you not think raping a child is harming them?



Yes, of course it is.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 21, 2010)

Making the  assumption that his previous life experience has bearing on his adult predilections, the psychology of this is scary as anything, but I have to say fascinating as well.

You can't even begin to imagine an emotional path that might have led Venables from Jamie Bulger to looking at this imagery - if indeed there is a link in his head. There has to be, doesn't there? It's extraordinary, imo.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 21, 2010)

Fucked up child killer is fucked up. Not that extraordinary IMO.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 21, 2010)

You know a lot do you, children who kill, and then - as adults - manifest seriously unconventional and criminal child-related behaviour?


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 21, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> You know a lot do you, children who kill, and then - as adults - manifest seriously unconventional and criminal child-related behaviour?



Seriously unconvential for people who aren't child killers you mean.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 21, 2010)

No, I mean you know a lot?


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 21, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> No, I mean you know a lot?



Clearly you don't, if you find it so surprising that a child killer might be interested in child porn, I mean who's ever heard of such an unlikely thing?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 21, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> Making the  assumption that his previous life experience has bearing on his adult predilections, the psychology of this is scary as anything, but I have to say fascinating as well.
> 
> You can't even begin to imagine an emotional path that might have led Venables from Jamie Bulger to looking at this imagery - if indeed there is a link in his head. There has to be, doesn't there? It's extraordinary, imo.



Not just from Bulger to the images of course- the factors and enviroment that lead to Bulger will be critical given how influential those factors will be at a young age.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 21, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> Clearly you don't, if you find it so surprising that a child killer might be interested in child porn, I mean who's ever heard of such an unlikely thing?



a child killer of a child, is the point.

Unless your argument is he was a padophile at  aged 10?


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 21, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> a child killer of a child, is the point.



I'm just saying it's not really a surprise he's supposedly now exhibiting fucked up behaviour. Par for the course with the life he's had I'd imagine.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 21, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Not just from Bulger to the images of course- the factors and enviroment that lead to Bulger will be critical given how influential those factors will be at a young age.



I have no idea, and I'm not sure anyone does at this point.

Venables' whole life is effectively one huge learning laboratory.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 21, 2010)

citygirl said:


> Dunno if anyone's seen this... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/07/jon-venables-confessed-identity
> 
> man that sounds like it's fucked him up for life.. so much for "rehabilitation"... :|



But to be fair, looking at naked pictures of kids isn't as bad a crime as murdering them so he's obviously heading in the right direction!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 21, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> a child killer of a child, is the point.
> 
> Unless your argument is he was a padophile at  aged 10?



Surely a possibility if he had been abused as a child.


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 21, 2010)

Yep, though there is no suggestion of that - at least not in the public domain.

Another view might be Venables is not remotely interested in images of children being abused but does know from the profile it's given in the media that, if you do download such images, you will eventually be caught.

He didn't exactly go overboard did he, was it fifty something images? He did pass several on though.


----------



## Pingu (Jun 21, 2010)

oh boy is he in for a fun time if convicted


----------



## citygirl (Jun 21, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> But to be fair, looking at naked pictures of kids isn't as bad a crime as murdering them so he's obviously heading in the right direction!



Perhaps... or maybe they just managed to pick him back up before he commited another one.....


----------

