Jon Venables

[BeansBeansBeans]

Do you think the public (or the parents of James Bulger) have a right to know the reasons behind Jon Venables' return to custody?

Personally, I don't believe it is in the public interest. It's an emotive subject though, because of the nature of the crime.

Your views?

[BDunnell]

No, they don't. Will Self's views as expressed on Question Time last night were absolutely right, too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/8550915.stm

[Daniel]

I agree.

[Daniel]

I agree.

People here are overly paranoid about their children. The strangest thing happened to me the other day....

Some girl who'd recently popped out a sprog updated her facebook status to say something like "I wish people who don't have kids would stop giving people parenting advice" and I said something like "Just because someone's had unprotected sex doesn't mean they make a better parent!"

So she flies off the handle and says wtf blah blah and deletes me from her friends list. Obviously she's got the wrong end of the stick so I message her back saying


Hi dozeybiznitch (name changed to protect the ignorant), didn't mean that about you personally or anything, just that you get some people who think just because they've had a kid that they know what to do. Certainly not trying to say that about you though. Sorry if I offended you.

Daniel

I thought that was pretty reasonable considering what I was saying was pretty obvious and she'd flown off the handle.

So she replies


well i have taken it personally. we tried for darcy for 8 months... for for us any way it wasnt just un protected sex. im 26 & ian is 33!!!!! your the type of person i was on about

it goes on for a little while longer and she says


Well im struggling to see how you got me having a go at my sister in law on facebook to me or people i know having un protected sex because we are child abuser. what a sick and twisted mind you have. if i ever see that you write anythin else like that on any of our mutual friends wall i will be reporting you to the police

At that point I reported her moronic messages to Facebook just so the whole stupid episode is on record somewhere. I mean wtf? :confused:

[christophulus]

No, they don't. Will Self's views as expressed on Question Time last night were absolutely right, too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/8550915.stm

I don't think the public have a right to know the details, but I can see the merits of the home office or whoever saying whether he went back for a technical infringement or another violent crime. It'd at least let the public know if he is "rehabilitated" or not.

Having said that, I do pretty much agree with what Will Self said.

[Dave B]

I don't think it's in the public interest to know, but it gives the tabloids something to bleat on about until Gordon Brown's finished giving evidence to Chilcot. Nice to see the "hanging's too good for 'em" brigade out in force on the comment pages. :s

[Daniel]

I don't think it's in the public interest to know, but it gives the tabloids something to bleat on about until Gordon Brown's finished giving evidence to Chilcot. Nice to see the "hanging's too good for 'em" brigade out in force on the comment pages. :s
http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/f60/6ad/f606ad58-47f5-4488-8254-722341a4b726

:p

[BDunnell]

I don't think the public have a right to know the details, but I can see the merits of the home office or whoever saying whether he went back for a technical infringement or another violent crime. It'd at least let the public know if he is "rehabilitated" or not.

What good does it do for us, the public, to know? I can't think of how it would affect me one way or the other, quite frankly.

[Daniel]

What good does it do for us, the public, to know? I can't think of how it would affect me one way or the other, quite frankly.
I think people don't necessarily want to know as such, it's just that they don't want to not know. He could be around the corner from me, why should I be a proper parent and actually take care of my children? etc etc

[BDunnell]

I think people don't necessarily want to know as such, it's just that they don't want to not know.

Precisely. People are utterly fascinated by this sort of thing, in a voyeuristic way rather than out of any genuine interest or concern.

[Daniel]

Precisely. People are utterly fascinated by this sort of thing, in a voyeuristic way rather than out of any genuine interest or concern.
Yeah. People just need to move the **** on really and look out for themselves and the fruit of their loins rather than expecting that the system is going to lock everyone up who could pose a thread or put them anywhere but nextdoor to them.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Part of me is curious to know who he is now and what he is up to, but I recognise it as simple morbid fascination rather than a logical need.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I couldn't give a **** to be honest.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think it is important that if the guy is on the loose, at least people have a vague idea where. It is all in the public record. That said, I think people do overreact to a lot of things.

Daniel, as for your friend, I stand with you. She figures because she popped a kid, she is special. I see that kid in a Shrink's office when he discovers in his 20's he is just the same sort of idiot everyone else is and he isnt' "special" or gifted. Probably will be an idiot if Mom is anything to go by.

[Daniel]

I think it is important that if the guy is on the loose, at least people have a vague idea where. It is all in the public record. That said, I think people do overreact to a lot of things.

Daniel, as for your friend, I stand with you. She figures because she popped a kid, she is special. I see that kid in a Shrink's office when he discovers in his 20's he is just the same sort of idiot everyone else is and he isnt' "special" or gifted. Probably will be an idiot if Mom is anything to go by.

The thing is Mark, he's not on the loose as such. That almost insinuates that he's on the run and that of course is not the case. As said in the video there's every chance that these two boys didn't really know what they were doing or didn't understand the implications and that now that they're older and presumably more developed they now won't offend in that way.

As for my 'friend' :laugh: Well she was just a work acquaintance to be honest and she added me :crazy: She was always a little bit dopey but I never pegged her as being quite that thick.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The thing is Mark, he's not on the loose as such. That almost insinuates that he's on the run and that of course is not the case. As said in the video there's every chance that these two boys didn't really know what they were doing or didn't understand the implications and that now that they're older and presumably more developed they now won't offend in that way.

.

I don' t Daniel. I find it hard to believe two teens could kill a small boy and NOT grasp the implications. Kids know killing another kid or human is dead wrong. I didnt know if this guy is out on parole or not. In Canada, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, there would be a court suppression of his name so the press couldn't even tell us his name....

The public's right to know is not just voyeurism. If you have kids, you would like to know if the gov't was putting in a halfway house down the street for a guy released for killing children...

[Andrewmcm]

Calling a kid Darcy is probably punishment enough for the poor sod.

[Daniel]

Calling a kid Darcy is probably punishment enough for the poor sod.
It's a girl btw :p

[Daniel]

I don' t Daniel. I find it hard to believe two teens could kill a small boy and NOT grasp the implications. Kids know killing another kid or human is dead wrong. I didnt know if this guy is out on parole or not. In Canada, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, there would be a court suppression of his name so the press couldn't even tell us his name....

The public's right to know is not just voyeurism. If you have kids, you would like to know if the gov't was putting in a halfway house down the street for a guy released for killing children...

IMHO it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they didn't know. I'm not saying they didn't and I'm not saying they did, it's kind of a moot point really.

Mark, if I had kids I would do my best to keep them out of harms way and like 99.99999999% of kids they'd be just fine.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I think it is important that if the guy is on the loose, at least people have a vague idea where.

Both Thompson and Venables were given life-long anonymity, so what would be the point in letting people have any sort of clue where they are?

Only a select few professionals need to know who and where they now are, so that they can be monitored.

I have to add that I don't believe they pose any sort of threat to children.

[Daniel]

Both Thompson and Venables were given life-long anonymity, so what would be the point in letting people have any sort of clue where they are?

No doubt that if their identity was compromised they or someone who looks even vaguely shifty would get killed in the name of vigilante justice.

[BeansBeansBeans]

No doubt that if their identity was compromised they or someone who looks even vaguely shifty would get killed in the name of vigilante justice.

The irony is that those who complain about the amount of taxpayers money spent giving the pair new identities are the same that violently fantasise about what they'd do if they got their hands on them.

[Daniel]

The irony is that those who complain about the amount of taxpayers money spent giving the pair new identities are the same that violently fantasise about what they'd do if they got their hands on them.
So true. I like to feel that I'm a practical and logical person and I completely agree with you. It's sad to think that the development and childhool of children everywhere is held back by their parents worrying about the most unlikely things happening to their children. I was allowed out when I was a child and although my parents told me about stranger danger when I was a little one but there wasn't this whole pedo (spelling mistake fully intended) thing going on where any slightly shabby middle aged man/me on facebook is a potential child molester :confused:

[BeansBeansBeans]

So true. I like to feel that I'm a practical and logical person and I completely agree with you. It's sad to think that the development and childhool of children everywhere is held back by their parents worrying about the most unlikely things happening to their children. I was allowed out when I was a child and although my parents told me about stranger danger when I was a little one but there wasn't this whole pedo (spelling mistake fully intended) thing going on where any slightly shabby middle aged man/me on facebook is a potential child molester :confused:

Exactly.

Plus, in the vast, vast majority of child abuse cases, the abuser is a member of the child's family. Therefore, if you're paranoid about your child being abused, the best course of action is to not go anywhere near your child.

[Mark in Oshawa]

So true. I like to feel that I'm a practical and logical person and I completely agree with you. It's sad to think that the development and childhool of children everywhere is held back by their parents worrying about the most unlikely things happening to their children. I was allowed out when I was a child and although my parents told me about stranger danger when I was a little one but there wasn't this whole pedo (spelling mistake fully intended) thing going on where any slightly shabby middle aged man/me on facebook is a potential child molester :confused:
I agree with you, but I still wouldn't want the authorities would dump a child killer in a halfway home around the block.

[driveace]

Whilst i cannot except that two 10years olds ,taking away a two years old child,and abusing him ,then battering him to death with rocks etc,then placing his body across a railway line,so he would be further injured,did not know that it was wrong,and wicked ,is beyond belief.
My son in law in Australia,was under the impression that these renamed (boys) men were living in Perth Australia

[BeansBeansBeans]

Whilst i cannot except that two 10years olds ,taking away a two years old child,and abusing him ,then battering him to death with rocks etc,then placing his body across a railway line,so he would be further injured,did not know that it was wrong,and wicked ,is beyond belief.
My son in law in Australia,was under the impression that these renamed (boys) men were living in Perth Australia

There have been loads of rumours about them living in Australia (and that one of them was Dante Athurs, who killed that young girl) but they're all nonsense.

They're on a life licence. They'll remain under the close eye of the UK authorites for the rest of their days. They have regular meetings with their parole officers. None of this would be possible if they lived on the other side of the planet.

[DazzlaF1]

The irony is that those who complain about the amount of taxpayers money spent giving the pair new identities are the same that violently fantasise about what they'd do if they got their hands on them.

Exactly

[BDunnell]

So true. I like to feel that I'm a practical and logical person and I completely agree with you. It's sad to think that the development and childhool of children everywhere is held back by their parents worrying about the most unlikely things happening to their children. I was allowed out when I was a child and although my parents told me about stranger danger when I was a little one but there wasn't this whole pedo (spelling mistake fully intended) thing going on where any slightly shabby middle aged man/me on facebook is a potential child molester :confused:

The awful thing is that this is all media-driven, assisted by the manner in which people are today increasingly inclined to believe scare stories about which they merely read and the skewed sense of emotion possessed by large numbers of Britons — a phenomenon seen so graphically in the wake of the death of Princess Diana, and the subject of a quite brilliant film by Adam Curtis about what he called 'Oh dear-ism' on Charlie Brooker's Newswipe on BBC4.

[BDunnell]

The irony is that those who complain about the amount of taxpayers money spent giving the pair new identities are the same that violently fantasise about what they'd do if they got their hands on them.

They are also the self-same people who probably moan about 'health and safety' and 'political correctness', yet who are in favour of absurdly restrictive new measures being taken to 'protect' their children.

[Daniel]

The awful thing is that this is all media-driven, assisted by the manner in which people are today increasingly inclined to believe scare stories about which they merely read and the skewed sense of emotion possessed by large numbers of Britons — a phenomenon seen so graphically in the wake of the death of Princess Diana, and the subject of a quite brilliant film by Adam Curtis about what he called 'Oh dear-ism' on Charlie Brooker's Newswipe on BBC4.
I love watching Newswipe :D

[BDunnell]

I love watching Newswipe :D

It is, unquestionably, one of the best shows on television, and Charlie Brooker offers a perfect example of how it is possible to be highly profane in a very erudite and worthwhile manner. And the things he expresses his anger about are worthy of that anger, unlike other things on TV where one sees people getting angry about other people performing poorly at dancing or cooking.

[Dave B]

Newswipe (along with The Day Today) should form part of every media studies course, especially the former's "anatomy of a news report" clip:

aHun58mz3vI

With cases like the Bulger murder, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the phrase "in the public interest", with the media believing it to mean that the public would be interested rather than the information actually being useful to them.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Newswipe (along with The Day Today) should form part of every media studies course...

Along with the books Flat Earth News by Nick Davies and Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.

[BDunnell]

Along with the books Flat Earth News by Nick Davies and Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.

I agree 100 per cent.

[BDunnell]

Newswipe (along with The Day Today) should form part of every media studies course, especially the former's "anatomy of a news report" clip

This is, it should be stressed, a programme that would simply never be made by virtually any TV channel virtually anywhere else in the world. The notion of any of the American networks daring to make something like Newswipe, of them having the confidence to turn on themselves as Newswipe does in relation to the BBC, is fanciful.



With cases like the Bulger murder, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the phrase "in the public interest", with the media believing it to mean that the public would be interested rather than the information actually being useful to them.

Sadly, everyone feels they have the right to know everything nowadays. When used positively, as with Freedom of Information and serious matters, this could be a force for good, but instead most people believe their right to know covers only who a footballer might have shagged that isn't his wife and whether they've got a nonce living within 100 miles of them.

[BeansBeansBeans]

The behaviour of the tabloid press over the last few days. They've been reporting (almost as fact) that Venables has been put away for drug offences and a workplace altercation. Today, they're suggesting it was a sexual offence and that the earlier claims have been dismissed. It seems that if you preface allegations with 'sources suggest' you can say anything you like.

[BDunnell]

The behaviour of the tabloid press over the last few days. They've been reporting (almost as fact) that Venables has been put away for drug offences and a workplace altercation. Today, they're suggesting it was a sexual offence and that the earlier claims have been dismissed. It seems that if you preface allegations with 'sources suggest' you can say anything you like.

Sadly, a lot of people would take the view that this is exactly why the Government should tell everyone the reason behind his return to custody, ignoring the fact that it makes not a jot of difference to anyone one way or the other as to whether we know or not.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I might start a Facebook group.

Jon Venables has been swiftly returned to custody after breaching the terms of his life licence. The authorities are obviously doing their jobs properly without our help, thank you very much.

[Dave B]

It seems that if you preface allegations with 'sources suggest' you can say anything you like.

A source close to me suggested that a lot of what the newspapers print may in fact be bollocks.


Along with the books Flat Earth News by Nick Davies and Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.

I read Goldacre's column and blog, and have made a mental note to look out for Davies' book. :up:

[Daniel]

I might start a Facebook group.

Jon Venables has been swiftly returned to custody after breaching the terms of his life licence. The authorities are obviously doing their jobs properly without our help, thank you very much.
Pedo!!!!! I bet you don't have children!!!!!!! :p

[Daniel]

Newswipe (along with The Day Today) should form part of every media studies course, especially the former's "anatomy of a news report" clip:

aHun58mz3vI

With cases like the Bulger murder, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the phrase "in the public interest", with the media believing it to mean that the public would be interested rather than the information actually being useful to them.
So so and so! I was going to post that rather brilliant video :D

[BeansBeansBeans]

Pedo!!!!! I bet you don't have children!!!!!!! :p

I actually saw something similar on a Facebook group the other day. A guy said something along the lines of "What he did was awful, but he has served his time for that crime", to which someone responded "Well, I hope your kids get tortured to death. See how you like it."

[Dave B]

I feel sorry for Bulger's mother, I can't begin to comprehend the loss of a child, but popping up on TV screeching that she has "a right to know" all the details about Venables' alleged crimes does her - and victims in general - no favours whatsoever.

It appears that the decision has been made not to make any more details public, and judging by the mobs which have popped up everywhere from Facebook to phone-ins, all wielding virtual pitchforks, this is a sensible course of action.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I see some poor chap from Fleetwood has been wrongly identified as Venables and is living in fear of his life. Things like this make me glad that less than half the population turn out to vote.

[Mark]

I feel sorry for Bulger's mother, I can't begin to comprehend the loss of a child, but popping up on TV screeching that she has "a right to know" all the details about Venables' alleged crimes does her - and victims in general - no favours whatsoever.

Indeed. Her distress is the reason this should have never been disclosed in the first place. If it had remained secret she would be none the wiser and better off for it.

She was on TV last night and looked obviously distressed but claimed "I've had to pull my kids out of school", erm, why?!

[BeansBeansBeans]

If someone murdered my child, I'd be the same. This is why the victims of crime should've have no say in the judicial process. Mind, I hate the way the papers act like they're on her side, when really they're just winding the poor woman up to make news.

[Dave B]

This is why the victims of crime should've have no say in the judicial process.
Indeed. I really don't understand this fixation with "victims' statements" in court. Murder (for example) is murder. Why should it make a difference if the victim is a loving family man who did great work for his community, or a tramp who lived alone and friendless in a subway? One trial could trot out a string of people willing to speak about how wonderful the victim was, and will probably have a satellite truck camped outside the courthouse. The other trial will probably proceed without anybody knowing or caring.


Mind, I hate the way the papers act like they're on her side, when really they're just winding the poor woman up to make news.
Ah well there's the nub of the matter. As we saw with the debacle over Brown's letter to that serviceman's mother, the actual victims and their families are mere pawns in a game of selling newspapers and getting viewiers. Ethics can go hang so long as advertising space can be sold.

[Daniel]

I actually saw something similar on a Facebook group the other day. A guy said something along the lines of "What he did was awful, but he has served his time for that crime", to which someone responded "Well, I hope your kids get tortured to death. See how you like it."
I'm glad you saw the point of my comment :D I love it how people make these sweeping genralisations that only people who didn't have kids wouldn't care about this or something.

[wedge]

Newswipe (along with The Day Today) should form part of every media studies course, especially the former's "anatomy of a news report" clip

Not forgetting Brass Eye

NesjvRihbEg

[Daniel]

Indeed. I really don't understand this fixation with "victims' statements" in court. Murder (for example) is murder. Why should it make a difference if the victim is a loving family man who did great work for his community, or a tramp who lived alone and friendless in a subway? One trial could trot out a string of people willing to speak about how wonderful the victim was, and will probably have a satellite truck camped outside the courthouse. The other trial will probably proceed without anybody knowing or caring.


Ah well there's the nub of the matter. As we saw with the debacle over Brown's letter to that serviceman's mother, the actual victims and their families are mere pawns in a game of selling newspapers and getting viewiers. Ethics can go hang so long as advertising space can be sold.

Can I get an AMEN!!!! :up:

It really gets on my nerves how when it's a fluffy kid or something that the person who killed them is a monster and if it's a homeless person or a prostitute or something it's not as bad.

The media are c-words. They use the victims as pawns to score points or as you say just sell papers and get viewers in.

[Daniel]

If someone murdered my child, I'd be the same. This is why the victims of crime should've have no say in the judicial process. Mind, I hate the way the papers act like they're on her side, when really they're just winding the poor woman up to make news.

I agree. I've been watching far too much Law & Order lately but I believe that victims having a say in the judicial process would be as Jack McCoy would say, "unfairly prejudicial", just as having the mother of the defendant or a business partner of a drug dealer involved would take things in the wrong direction.

[BeansBeansBeans]

It really gets on my nerves how when it's a fluffy kid or something that the person who killed them is a monster and if it's a homeless person or a prostitute or something it's not as bad.

I do believe that the murder of a child is worse, by some degree, than the murder of an adult.

[Daniel]

I do believe that the murder of a child is worse, by some degree, than the murder of an adult.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[ArrowsFA1]

Can we expect more of this kind of thing in the days and weeks to come...

A father of two says he fears for his safety after he was falsely accused on Facebook of being Jon Venables.
LINK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/09/david-calvert-jon-venables-facebook-jamie-bulger)

[Daniel]

No doubt that if their identity was compromised they or someone who looks even vaguely shifty would get killed in the name of vigilante justice.
Hmm I did say this before :(

[BeansBeansBeans]

Can we expect more of this kind of thing in the days and weeks to come...

Speaking as a man just out of his 20s with a slight scouse accent living in another part of the UK...I bloody well hope not.

[Daniel]

Speaking as a man just out of his 20s with a slight scouse accent living in another part of the UK...I bloody well hope not.
Sources say that Jon Venables likes beans, has a daughter and is living up in Newcastle.

[Dave B]

I've just seen that story on (please don't judge me) on the Daily Mail's website:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256533/Jon-Venables-Terror-young-father-accused-Bulger-killer-Facebook.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo



A young father was in fear for his life today after he was falsely accused of being Jon Venables on Facebook.

By 8am this morning, more than 2,370 people had joined the Facebook group to discuss the new name given to Venables when he was released from custody nine years ago.


It's truly chilling what can happen when a lynchmob mentality takes over :s

[Daniel]

I've just seen that story on (please don't judge me) on the Daily Mail's website:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256533/Jon-Venables-Terror-young-father-accused-Bulger-killer-Facebook.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo



It's truly chilling what can happen when a lynchmob mentality takes over :s
Look at the comments though. Lots of very sensible people :up:

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="BeansBeansBeans"]If someone murdered my child, I'd be the same. This is why the victims of crime should've have no say in the judicial process.

Couldnt agree less. Justice is too important to be left to the judiciary, and the fine members of that profession would like nothing more than to go about their business without having to deal with relatives of victims. Last month here in NI a couple of child murderers were convicted after the victims parents had to force the public prosecution to bring them to trial. PPS would have let them walk.

[wedge]

has a daughter and is living up in Newcastle.

If I was an Evertonian then I would certainly sympathise with Venables

[Daniel]

If someone murdered my child, I'd be the same. This is why the victims of crime should've have no say in the judicial process.

Couldnt agree less. Justice is too important to be left to the judiciary, and the fine members of that profession would like nothing more than to go about their business without having to deal with relatives of victims. Last month here in NI a couple of child murderers were convicted after the victims parents had to force the public prosecution to bring them to trial. PPS would have let them walk.
Details?

[Daniel]

If I was an Evertonian then I would certainly sympathise with Venables
Errrr?

[jim mcglinchey]

Details?

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/pps-we-regret-distress-caused-in-thomas-devlin-murder-case-14700298.html

[wedge]

Sorry, bad joke

*grabs coat*

[Daniel]

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/pps-we-regret-distress-caused-in-thomas-devlin-murder-case-14700298.html
The way it's put across there seems very reasonable. Circumstantial case, PPS doesn't feel it's worth it and chooses not to proceed. But of course that article is the gospel according to the PPS so I do take it with a grain of salt.

I've no problem with families being involved with the choice of whether to go to trial or not tbh.

She was on TV last night and looked obviously distressed but claimed "I've had to pull my kids out of school", erm, why?!

Why?

So she can leave them outside a Butchers shop instead?

[Daniel]

Why?

So she can leave them outside a Butchers shop instead?
I'm genuinely speachless!

[Dave B]

I can only assume he's trolling, and as such won't be biting. :\

[Langdale Forest]

Both of James Bulger's killers should have been never released, really they should have been given the death sentance if it still existed.

[Daniel]

Both of James Bulger's killers should have been never released, really they should have been given the death sentance if it still existed.

You sir are a moron. How you can even entertain the idea of killing a flipping CHILD no matter what the circumstances are is truly beyond belief.

[Dave B]

Both of James Bulger's killers should have been never released, really they should have been given the death sentance if it still existed.
You'd have happily seen two 10 year-old children executed? :dozey:

[Mark]

Death sentance on ten year olds. And there we have another example of why the public have no part to play!

[Daniel]

Death sentance on ten year olds. And there we have another example of why the public have no part to play!
You obviously don't have kids! Pedo!

[Langdale Forest]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
You sir are a moron. How you can even entertain the idea of killing a flipping CHILD no matter what the circumstances are is truly beyond belief.



If a 10 year old abuses and kills people, what is the chance that they will improve? The chances are is that they will go on to commit more crimes and even kill more people.

[BeansBeansBeans]

You sir are a moron. How you can even entertain the idea of killing a flipping CHILD no matter what the circumstances are is truly beyond belief.

Why have you put child in caps? According to your earlier post there is no difference between killing a child and killing an adult... :p

[Daniel]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

If a 10 year old abuses and kills people, what is the chance that they will improve? The chances are is that they will go on to commit more crimes and even kill more people.

Perhaps so. But you're ignorant now, what are the chances of you growing a braincell? Should we just execute you now?

[Daniel]

Why have you put child in caps? According to your earlier post there is no difference between killing a child and killing an adult... :p

Hmmmm :p

I believe punishment should be different for children as opposed to adults as offenders, not different when the crime is murdering a child or an adult. Fair point though. It just shows how even though it shouldn't be different that it is :p

[Langdale Forest]

Have you got a braincell then? :uhoh:

[Daniel]

Have you got a braincell then? :uhoh:

Yep, I have a few :)

[Langdale Forest]

So do I.

[BeansBeansBeans]

If a 10 year old abuses and kills people, what is the chance that they will improve?

I'd say there was more chance of rehabiliting a child than an adult, and whilst that chance exists then society must attempt rehabilitation, in my opinion.

[Daniel]

Use it then FFS and stop being so damn ignorant and see the reality of life.

[Langdale Forest]

I'd say there was more chance of rehabiliting a child than an adult, and whilst that chance exists then society must attempt rehabilitation, in my opinion.

I agree but two boys near Doncaster almost killed two other boys last year, what is the chance of them getting back on track?

[Daniel]

I'd say there was more chance of rehabiliting a child than an adult, and whilst that chance exists then society must attempt rehabilitation, in my opinion.
Definitely. I think other than in cases where people are just stone cold evil like the birnies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Catherine_Birnie then someone should be given a chance.

[Daniel]

I agree but two boys near Doncaster almost killed two other boys last year, what is the chance of them getting back on track?

Who knows? But it's not up to us to assume now that they won't change in the future

[Langdale Forest]

Who knows? But it's not up to us to assume now that they won't change in the future

But they will still be awful people though, and not of much use.

[Dave B]

Oh joy, one of my friends has posted this on Facebook:


John Venables new name is David Calvert. He lives in Fleetwood and raped a 19 yr old girl in school grounds in Warrington. He spent time at Barton child unit and knew the area. Some prison warden doesn't think it should be kept quiet! Pass this on to as many people as you can.

I've set her straight :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

But they will still be awful people though, and not of much use.
You're awful and of little use. I don't think killing you is the right thing though.

[Daniel]

Reading through this thread, I must admit that one comment does shock me and screams extremely poor taste. I'm not surprised at the remark from this individual, but it really has no place here.. :(

I didn't think you would have known Langdale Forest? :p

[Daniel]

Oh joy, one of my friends has posted this on Facebook:



I've set her straight :rolleyes:
*shakes head* Tbh I'd delete someone from my friends list for that.

[Azumanga Davo]

I think the general problem here is that the boys, from as far as the public ascertain, got off very lightly for the crime they commited all those years ago. People have been left to rot in jail for longer for lesser charges.

Although I'm definitely not one of those "get the rope out, we've a-hangin' to do" type of folk, I do feel they got out much too early in the first place. If anything, I would have at least a few more years to issue new identities and so forth to them.

I dunno, it's tough to know the right answer here. But let's remember the murder of James Bulger was a horrific one which should never be forgotten.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I think the general problem here is that the boys, from as far as the public ascertain, got off very lightly for the crime they commited all those years ago. People have been left to rot in jail for longer for lesser charges.

It was an awful crime, but they were 10 years old. In many countries they would've been too young to charge, yet alone detain for eight years.

The only problem I have with the handling of the initial case is that the judge felt it a good idea to make their identities public in the first place.

[Azumanga Davo]

It was an awful crime, but they were 10 years old. In many countries they would've been too young to charge, yet alone detain for eight years.

Hence my genuine problem of having a clearly defined answer to this one.

If we look at it in the way that these two kids were in their late days of primary school, probably one or two away from high school, then you could also say they were old enough to realise what they did. You often hear of younger children who start fires whilst playing with matches, you tend to write it off as an accident. But leading a toddler away, taking them to a little used rail line and dropping a brick on his head is far beyond what you would call an "accident".

But what can you do? I'm really stuck, as many are, on what a suitable solution for those two would be.

[BeansBeansBeans]

If we look at it in the way that these two kids were in their late days of primary school, probably one or two away from high school, then you could also say they were old enough to realise what they did. You often hear of younger children who start fires whilst playing with matches, you tend to write it off as an accident. But leading a toddler away, taking them to a little used rail line and dropping a brick on his head is far beyond what you would call an "accident".

Nobody has ever claimed it was an accident.

[Azumanga Davo]

Nobody has ever claimed it was an accident.

Reread what I said. I never said it was. We can't blame this on childhood innocence is what I'm trying to say.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Reread what I said. I never said it was. We can't blame this on childhood innocence is what I'm trying to say.

Once again, nobody is blaming it on childhood innocence. However, you surely must agree that there was diminished responsibility due to their age.

[Azumanga Davo]

Once again, nobody is blaming it on childhood innocence. However, you surely must agree that there was diminished responsibility due to their age.

That's the trouble isn't it? At what age can we truly say diminished responsibility ends? I certainly don't know in this case, it's very borderline I reckon.

[BeansBeansBeans]

That's the trouble isn't it? At what age can we truly say diminished responsibility ends?

18, adulthood.

[Azumanga Davo]

18, adulthood.

Well, anyway, I still think a few more years behind bars before even contemplating them getting out at all should have been deserved. No doubt I'll get the "silly waste of taxpayers" line, but then again, this whole debacle is still costing you all something anyway.

[BDunnell]

But they will still be awful people though, and not of much use.

There are lots of people I find useless and/or appalling. Should they all be killed?

[BDunnell]

Indeed. Her distress is the reason this should have never been disclosed in the first place. If it had remained secret she would be none the wiser and better off for it.

She was on TV last night and looked obviously distressed but claimed "I've had to pull my kids out of school", erm, why?!

I still don't understand why she feels even she has the right to know, let alone any of the rest of us. What good does her knowing do to anyone, including herself? I don't think 'justice' has much to do with it.

Call me elitist — largely because I am, and feel more of us should be — but this whole debacle illustrates why much of the mistrust of officialdom is misplaced, and why the likes of judges are better placed to mete out justice than stupid tabloid newspaper readers.

[Langdale Forest]

There are lots of people I find useless and/or appalling. Should they all be killed?

Of course not.

[Azumanga Davo]

There are lots of people I find useless and/or appalling. Should they all be killed?

Only in fantasy, never further. ;)

Luckily, it seems my Facebook friends (the few from the UK that is) haven't been passing on any rumours, innuendos or false claims as such. After the last email ridiculousness over the Dante Arthurs affair, it's really silly what people will believe.

[Daniel]

Couldn't agree with you more Ben

[BDunnell]

Of course not.

You were the one who suggested that people should be killed on the grounds of being useless and appalling, not any of the rest of us.

[Azumanga Davo]

You were the one who suggested that people should be killed on the grounds of being useless and appalling, not any of the rest of us.

Maybe we should kill them using very dangerous Toyotas from 1983 as well? Kill two birds with one stone as it were.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I still don't understand why she feels even she has the right to know, let alone any of the rest of us. What good does her knowing do to anyone, including herself? I don't think 'justice' has much to do with it.

A lot of parents of murdered children (Denise Bulger, Colin Parry, Sara Payne...etc) tend to throw themselves in campaign work. Whilst I may not agree with a lot of what they say, I find it hard to condemn them. They've been through one of the most emotionally damaging experiences possible.

I agree that she doesn't have a right to know and that it'd be better for her if she were able to find forgiveness and move on, but that's much, much easier said than done.

[Hazell B]

I certainly don't know in this case, it's very borderline I reckon.

I don't know either, but I read an article written by somebody who had listened to the statement interviews given to the police by the boys at and after the arrests.

It pretty much said neither of them fully understood that the boy they had 'played' with was another human being with thoughts and feelings. They were self centered and once they understood the damage they had done, upset at their actions. I'm not standing up for them in any way, but I got the impression they weren't exactly as street smart as many children of their age, and certainly not as grown up as the ten year old of today's society.

That's why I could never agree that a set age should see the law charge you as an adult or child. We all differ so much in our growing up. At ten I could do so much alone, like care for large horses without any parental help at all, yet I had never been on a bus alone or in a city without parents. I could feed a demanding and complicated animal yet not myself. Maybe these lads could tell right from wrong in normal circumstances yet still not realise another boy had feelings and a mum who loved him?

[BeansBeansBeans]

I don't know either, but I read an article written by somebody who had listened to the statement interviews given to the police by the boys at and after the arrests.

It pretty much said neither of them fully understood that the boy they had 'played' with was another human being with thoughts and feelings. They were self centered and once they understood the damage they had done, upset at their actions. I'm not standing up for them in any way, but I got the impression they weren't exactly as street smart as many children of their age, and certainly not as grown up as the ten year old of today's society.

I agree entirely.


That's why I could never agree that a set age should see the law charge you as an adult or child. We all differ so much in our growing up. At ten I could do so much alone, like care for large horses without any parental help at all, yet I had never been on a bus alone or in a city without parents. I could feed a demanding and complicated animal yet not myself. Maybe these lads could tell right from wrong in normal circumstances yet still not realise another boy had feelings and a mum who loved him?

Again, I agree, but surely making a set age is unavoidable. It's the same with other age-related laws. The age of sexual consent is 16, although some 14 years olds will be more mature than some 18 year olds. Ditto similar rules for smoking, drinking....etc It's not ideal, but I'm not sure everything can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

[Hazell B]

Again, I agree, but surely making a set age is unavoidable. It's the same with other age-related laws.


No it isn't. Smoking and so on aren't illegal and have no moral issues. They are a legal choice at a set age, black and white. Killing in a non-planned way is totally different. If you can't understand that killing is ending a life (and as far as I remember James Bulger was left alive, not dead) and destroying other lives, you cannot be found guilty of murder. These boys, and some low IQ adults, have no grasp of that. Would you have sub 80 IQ-ers tried like 150's for beating a man to death in a road rage incident? I wouldn't in some cases.

All I'm saying is that from what I read, these boys couldn't be treated as adults or even teenagers like today's 10 year olds could probably be.
So, come release time, they were let out early as they appeared to be grown up and coping with normal ethics.

Frankly, I wish they'd been kept in for life. Even if they had never bothered the legal system again, I think they should have been used as a learning tool in classrooms their entire locked-up lives. I don't care how sorry they are/were/pretended to be, either. They should not have been given a minute out of prison in my eyes. Sadly, I think I've been proved right on that one now, and I wish that wasn't the case.

[BDunnell]

Smoking and so on aren't illegal and have no moral issues.

I think those who feel that smoking bans (which do, I need not point out, render smoking illegal in some circumstances) are an unnecessary encroachment upon personal freedoms would consider there to be moral issues attached to smoking. But I do take your point.

In truth, the laws relating to ages of consent ought to be of no great concern. They are constantly flouted, and very rarely policed, yet their existence does little actual harm in terms of offering guidelines. Laws relating to responsibility in criminal cases are far more problematic because of the enormous variance that exists between individual psyches, and more emotive because of certain cases that bring the issue to light, but are we placed at significant risk as a result of our not being able to lock children up from any age? Not really, and that is surely the test.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't know either, but I read an article written by somebody who had listened to the statement interviews given to the police by the boys at and after the arrests.

It pretty much said neither of them fully understood that the boy they had 'played' with was another human being with thoughts and feelings. They were self centered and once they understood the damage they had done, upset at their actions. I'm not standing up for them in any way, but I got the impression they weren't exactly as street smart as many children of their age, and certainly not as grown up as the ten year old of today's society.

That's why I could never agree that a set age should see the law charge you as an adult or child. We all differ so much in our growing up. At ten I could do so much alone, like care for large horses without any parental help at all, yet I had never been on a bus alone or in a city without parents. I could feed a demanding and complicated animal yet not myself. Maybe these lads could tell right from wrong in normal circumstances yet still not realise another boy had feelings and a mum who loved him?

I don't know Hazel. We all know right from wrong at a pretty young age when it comes to hurting or killing someone. We should be able to place ourselves in the other guy's shoes, and I know at the age of 7 or 10, that I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of what little James Bulger did. I am not buying their remorse one iota.... I do think they may have been naive or maybe misguided, but past a point, they know. They HAVE to know.

You wouldn't have hurt your horse at age 10, because you knew it was wrong. What kind of society do we have if kids cant grasp doing what was done to James Bulger was wrong?

I don't think you can try them as adults, but I will never have much time giving these kids any kind of excuse. I don't know all the grisly details off the top of my head, but I remember the BBC reports and news in the press on this. I would like to know that status of the perpetrators and I would be upset if they lived around the block from me...

[BeansBeansBeans]

They were tried as adults Mark. They could barely see over the dock.

[BDunnell]

You wouldn't have hurt your horse at age 10, because you knew it was wrong. What kind of society do we have if kids cant grasp doing what was done to James Bulger was wrong?

But the vast majority of kids do grasp that killing someone is wrong. If children were going round committing copycat offences, then I would agree that there was a concern, but they aren't so there's not.


I would like to know that status of the perpetrators and I would be upset if they lived around the block from me...

Why would you like to know their status? What actual good would it do? Would anyone be any safer as a result? The answers, surely, are 'none' and 'no'.

[mjh]

This is an incredibly difficult subject and I thought hard before posting a reply.

I was born and bred in Liverpool, but was working in Essex when the events took place. I recall heated discussions were pretty much one (christian) colleague and myself (very lapsed catholic) were the only ones talking of helping Thompson and Venables and everyone elses view ranged from 'lock them up and throw away the key' to 'bring back hanging'. I was shocked at the viciousness of people, and how in a way the horror of kids killing kids was worse than an adult committing the same act.

There was an article at the time comparing the case with that of Mary Bell twenty years or so earlier, and other cases going further back. I don't recall the details, but the general gist was this:
- Very rarely very young kids commit murder.
- Almost without exception these kids have been created by adults - they have been abused and neglected during the earliest years of their lives to the point that their perception of right and wrong is not the same as 99.99% of kids of the same age.
- That as time goes by whilst the frequency of these events stays the same, that the opinion of society hardens and the expectation of punishment becomes harsher. In the very earliest cases (I think there were cases going back about 100years in the article) the kids had been taken from the abusive environment and 'retrained' in society with great success without being prosecuted and punished through the adult justice system. Mary Bell was released and reintergrated successfully, had a child, and ultimately became a grandmother.

In my view the society that has created these kids is so ashamed of it's failures that it wants all the evidence removed. And whilst the comment about Denise Fergus and the butcher shop was near the knuckle, you do wonder how much of her drive to punish these kids comes from her own feelings about mistakes she may have made on that day. She was the adult responsible for the safety of her two year old son.

I now have a 7 year old and a (nearly) 2 year old.

I read the reports about the abuse the two kids in Doncaster carried out on the little kid and his young uncle, who thankfully survived but more through luck than intent. The back story of the abusers was the same - abused and neglected by their parents and given drugs / alcohol at a young age. Written off by the social workers and cops as too much like hard work. They were created by the failures of the adults around them.
But the compassion I found for Thompson and Venables was gone. I was genuinely upset to find myself thinking that if that had been done to my kids I could - and I am 100% sure of this- given the opportunity kill the kids responsible.

And that, is why I agree that the courts have made the right call on this, that the details and identities should be kept from us. We cannot be trusted to act humanely, we are more likely to act like animals....

[Daniel]

Whilst the comment about Denise Fergus and the butcher shop was near the knuckle, you do wonder how much of her drive to punish these kids comes from her own feelings about mistakes she may have made on that day. She was the adult responsible for the safety of her two year old son.

I think the nail has been hit on the head. Whilst she didn't force those two boys to take her son and brutally murder him, she did give them the opportunity to do it. Now if this sort of thing did happen to me I've no doubt I'd be filled with feelings of revenge and hatred and I couldn't guarantee that I wouldn't want to kill someone, but I wouldn't dress it up as being in the public interest.

[Mark]

I think the nail has been hit on the head. Whilst she didn't force those two boys to take her son and brutally murder him, she did give them the opportunity to do it. Now if this sort of thing did happen to me I've no doubt I'd be filled with feelings of revenge and hatred and I couldn't guarantee that I wouldn't want to kill someone, but I wouldn't dress it up as being in the public interest.

Well the situation is very similar to that of Madeline McCann, although we don't actually know what happened to her. Except int eh McCann's case the criticism of the parents was swift and without reserve.

[Daniel]

Well the situation is very similar to that of Madeline McCann, although we don't actually know what happened to her. Except int eh McCann's case the criticism of the parents was swift and without reserve.
Well I guess with the McCann's the criticism was more swift because what they did was a lot worse than what James Bulger's mum did.

[Daniel]

No it isn't. Smoking and so on aren't illegal and have no moral issues. They are a legal choice at a set age, black and white. Killing in a non-planned way is totally different. If you can't understand that killing is ending a life (and as far as I remember James Bulger was left alive, not dead) and destroying other lives, you cannot be found guilty of murder. These boys, and some low IQ adults, have no grasp of that. Would you have sub 80 IQ-ers tried like 150's for beating a man to death in a road rage incident? I wouldn't in some cases.

Your point is good Hazell, but the law takes into account someone's mental age and mental state when looking at whether to punish someone or institutionalise them.

IMHO anyone above a very low age (lets say 7 or 8?) should be able to be tried as an adult, though of course mental age and state of mind should be taken into account and anyone over a certain age (15 or 18 for example) must be tried as an adult barring some sort of mental retardation or mental illness. Too often people who are perfectly aware of their actions can commit a crime before they're 18 knowing full well they'll get treated as if they didn't know what they were doing when they clearly did!

[BeansBeansBeans]

Well the situation is very similar to that of Madeline McCann, although we don't actually know what happened to her.

I think that's a little unfair. Madeline McCann's parents left her and her siblings alone in a hotel room. Denise Bulger took her eye off her son whilst shopping and he wandered off. The former constitutes deliberate irresponsibility whilst the latter is a simple mistake that most parents of small children can identify with. Still, all those parents mentioned have paid for their lapses in the worst possible way, so condemning them is unnecessary.

[Daniel]

I think that's a little unfair. Madeline McCann's parents left her and her siblings alone in a hotel room. Denise Bulger took her eye off her son whilst shopping and he wandered off. The former constitutes deliberate irresponsibility whilst the latter is a simple mistake that most parents of small children can identify with. Still, all those parents mentioned have paid for their lapses in the worst possible way, so condemning them is unnecessary.
People should be condemned though.

[BeansBeansBeans]

People should be condemned though.

I think the McCanns are all too aware that they did wrong. They have to live with it everyday. I don't see the point in labouring the point over and over again on internet forums.

[Dave B]

I've got my own thoughts on what the McCanns may or may not have done wrong, but this is entirely the wrong thread ;)

[BeansBeansBeans]

I've got my own thoughts on what the McCanns may or may not have done wrong, but this is entirely the wrong thread ;)

With respect Dave, your comment wouldn't look out of place on one of those Facebook groups we're all condemning (except that you've spelt all the words correctly.)

[Dave B]

Which is why I'm not proposing we hunt the McCanns down and lynch them. If there is any culpability I trust the legal system will deal with them appropriately.

[Daniel]

I think the McCanns are all too aware that they did wrong. They have to live with it everyday. I don't see the point in labouring the point over and over again on internet forums.
but I'm sure Jon Venables knows what he's done is wrong, should be we let him off? Poor ickle boy!

[BeansBeansBeans]

but I'm sure Jon Venables knows what he's done is wrong, should be we let him off? Poor ickle boy!

Venables committed a criminal offence, the McCanns / Denise Bulger didn't. Let's have a little perspective.

[Mark]

but I'm sure Jon Venables knows what he's done is wrong, should be we let him off? Poor ickle boy!

If people on this forum condemn him or praise him, it will have no results to his life whatsoever.

Venables committed a criminal offence, the McCanns / Denise Bulger didn't. Let's have a little perspective.

Neglect of a child is a criminal offence.

It isn't murder, but it is an offence.

Sorry if some sad, desperate-for-any-reason-to-bash-a-poster forum members think that is trolling or that I phrased it distastefully, but the simple fact is Denise Bulger, just like the McCann's, neglected her duties and responsibilities.

The very reason why nobody in Portugal gives much time to the McCann's is that the idea of not taking your children with you anywhere is completely against the standards of Portuguese culture and society, just as it is in other "latin" countries.

Apparently things are different in Blighty.

Here we apologise and make excuses for dreadful parenting so long as they look sad on Tv.

[Mark]

Just making the point that some seem to be suggesting that Denise Bulger should never be critised yet the McCanns can.

[BeansBeansBeans]

(O/T) Tamburello, were you on Come Dine With Me the other week? There was some guy who was a major Ferrari fan.

(O/T) Tamburello, were you on Come Dine With Me the other week? There was some guy who was a major Ferrari fan.

No, it wasn't me. Can't abide the programme or the type of people who go on it.

Just making the point that some seem to be suggesting that Denise Bulger should never be critised yet the McCanns can.

This could be interesting....you'll likely be accused of trolling your own message board.

[Daniel]

Venables committed a criminal offence, the McCanns / Denise Bulger didn't. Let's have a little perspective.
Neglecting your children or putting them in excessive danger is an offence is it not?

[Daniel]

Neglect of a child is a criminal offence.

It isn't murder, but it is an offence.

Sorry if some sad, desperate-for-any-reason-to-bash-a-poster forum members think that is trolling or that I phrased it distastefully, but the simple fact is Denise Bulger, just like the McCann's, neglected her duties and responsibilities.

The very reason why nobody in Portugal gives much time to the McCann's is that the idea of not taking your children with you anywhere is completely against the standards of Portuguese culture and society, just as it is in other "latin" countries.

Apparently things are different in Blighty.

Here we apologise and make excuses for dreadful parenting so long as they look sad on Tv.

I agree.

I know the McCann's and James Bulger's mum have do deal with this every day but the fact remains that it wasn't your or I who left our kids alone in a hotel room and it wasn't you or I who let them wander off in a shopping centre. The fact of the matter is that if the McCann's had taken their daughter to dinner with them like proper parents then she wouldn't have been snatched. Again lets not go into detail as it's something for another thread but the parents have to be blamed in some of these cases.

[Daniel]

I don't think anyone here was looking for an excuse to bash you, but making a sick remark about Denise Bulger choosing to leave her children outside a butchers shop is very distasteful IMO. Had you not posted that remark, you wouldn't have got any form of response. On the flip side you could be equally accused of deliberately posting controversial remarks with this type of desired response.

The McCann's is a totally different situation IMO and was very silly. Denise Bulger's mistake is something most parents have encountered whilst out shopping with their children, although the outcome is not usually this serious. How many times have you seen frantic mothers and fathers running around shops, because their child has run off? My mother used to leave me in a pushchair outside shops in the early 80's, and most folk of the older generation don't see the dangers that younger people have grown up knowing. This crime was not a common occurance in Warrington, and I'm sure she never thought in her worst nightmares that this would happen to her son. It did, and I'm sure she's paying for her negligence everyday, but condemning is the wrong phrase IMO.
I agree somewhat, what she did wasn't nearly as bad as what the McCann's did, but still, what she did gave the two boys the opportunity to take James.

Henners, to be fair Tamburello only said something that I'm sure some others were thinking of posting or at least thinking about posting.

[BeansBeansBeans]

knowing. This crime was not a common occurance in Warrington.

I think you've mixed your big 1993 news stories up Henners. James Bulger was abducted and killed in Liverpool. The IRA bomb attack in the same year was in Warrington.

[BeansBeansBeans]

The very reason why nobody in Portugal gives much time to the McCann's is that the idea of not taking your children with you anywhere is completely against the standards of Portuguese culture and society, just as it is in other "latin" countries.

Apparently things are different in Blighty.

I completely agree with this part of your post. In the UK, many people treat children as an inconvenience or an irritation. Other countries are more child-friendly and inclusive.

[Daniel]

I completely agree with this part of your post. In the UK, many people treat children as an inconvenience or an irritation. Other countries are more child-friendly and inclusive.
**Rhetorical question alert**

Then why do they have them? :(

[BeansBeansBeans]

**Rhetorical question alert**

Then why do they have them? :(

My comment was two-fold really. Many parents regard their kids as an inconvenience whereas many people without kids regard them as an irritation. I often hear people say "Oh God! I just HATE children." I question a society where it's seen as socially acceptable, or even cool, to say such things.

[Daniel]

My comment was two-fold really. Many parents regard their kids as an inconvenience whereas many people without kids regard them as an irritation. I often hear people say "Oh God! I just HATE children." I question a society where it's seen as socially acceptable, or even cool, to say such things.
What's wrong about a childless person saying "Ooh I hate children"? if you don't like 'em don't have 'em really :) Just like me saying I don't like modern German cars

[BeansBeansBeans]

What's wrong about a childless person saying "Ooh I hate children"?

I find expressing hatred of basically every single human being for the first few years of their life rather odd.

[Daniel]

I find expressing hatred of basically every single human being for the first few years of their life rather odd.
I do too. But some kids can be bloody annoying though :) Langdale Forest is a perfect example.

[BDunnell]

Sorry if some sad, desperate-for-any-reason-to-bash-a-poster forum members think that is trolling or that I phrased it distastefully, but the simple fact is Denise Bulger, just like the McCann's, neglected her duties and responsibilities.

To be fair, one ought to be able to leave a child outside a shop for a bit without fear of its being taken away and killed — I hate to sound right-wing about it, but the responsibility in such a case must lie with the perpetrator(s) of the crime — but there is a reasonable point lurking here. Is Denise Bulger the sort of person whose views on the justice system we ought to respect? Not really. The same, alas, goes for the parents of several other children who have been killed in unpleasant circumstances.

To be fair, one ought to be able to leave a child outside a shop for a bit

Not when the child in question was two years old.

Yes, in an ideal world children should be safe wherever they are, but until such a world exists it is bordering on delinquency to leave a two year child alone.

[BDunnell]

Not when the child in question was two years old.

Yes, in an ideal world children should be safe wherever they are, but until such a world exists it is bordering on delinquency to leave a two year child alone.

This is probably a reasonable point, to which I'd add that the danger of so doing now is probably no greater than it has ever been, because that perfect danger-free world has never existed.

[Daniel]

Sorry Ben but I have to agree with tamburello on this one. Sure you should be able to leave a kid outside a shop but does that mean you should leave a child outside a shop?

Of course the two boys were the ones who committed the murder but we've always lived in a dangerous world where these sorts of things have been possible

[BDunnell]

Sorry Ben but I have to agree with tamburello on this one. Sure you should be able to leave a kid outside a shop but does that mean you should leave a child outside a shop?

Of course the two boys were the ones who committed the murder but we've always lived in a dangerous world where these sorts of things have been possible

Sorry, I don't think I made my point very well. I don't disagree with any of that, but the idea of actually apportioning blame anywhere else than to those who commit a crime such as this strikes me as strange.

[Daniel]

would it have been another child though? To me it seems something of a crime of opportunity

[Daniel]

What's wrong with it Ben? If not for her being a little careless it wouldn't have happened to James.

How else do you explain her apparent feelings of guilt?

[mjh]

Sorry, I don't think I made my point very well. I don't disagree with any of that, but the idea of actually apportioning blame anywhere else than to those who commit a crime such as this strikes me as strange.

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with that.
At ten years old you have been shaped largely by the adults and environment you have been brought up in. I don't buy this nonsense about wickedness and evil, as though som kids just pop out of the womb with the desire to kill.
The adults that brought them up carry some (a lot !) of the blame.
The teachers / social workers / cops that failed to tackle the problems with the boys carry some of the blame.
Denise was the adult who was responsible for the care of Jamie Bulger, and carries some of the blame.
The adults who witnessed two boys parading a distressed two year old around the streets and did nothing carry some of the blame.
While the boys themselves carry the lions share of the blame, I still think they are as much as anything victims of adult failures in the same way the James became a victim of his mothers failure (however trivial you might think her failure was).

What really killed Jamie Bulger is a society that prefers to pass responsibility rather than tackle difficult social problems head on. It is very often children who are the victims (and I include Thompson and Venables as victims). And it is still happening - look at the case in Sheffield, where a 'father' repeated raped his daughters over a 35year period, despite being known to social services.

[BDunnell]

What's wrong with it Ben? If not for her being a little careless it wouldn't have happened to James.

If someone leaves their car unlocked and somebody else comes along and steals it, the car owner must be classed as being extremely foolish, but they are not to blame for the other individual's criminal behaviour. It's like the argument about rape — that if a girl dresses/behaves in a certain manner and is attacked, they are somehow to blame because they were 'asking for it'. Again, irresponsible they may have been, but wholly to blame? No. There is a big difference between apportioning blame and recognising contributory factors, surely?



How else do you explain her apparent feelings of guilt?

This is probably a natural reaction in the circumstances. But also see my comment above.

[BDunnell]

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with that.
At ten years old you have been shaped largely by the adults and environment you have been brought up in. I don't buy this nonsense about wickedness and evil, as though som kids just pop out of the womb with the desire to kill.
The adults that brought them up carry some (a lot !) of the blame.
The teachers / social workers / cops that failed to tackle the problems with the boys carry some of the blame.
Denise was the adult who was responsible for the care of Jamie Bulger, and carries some of the blame.
The adults who witnessed two boys parading a distressed two year old around the streets and did nothing carry some of the blame.
While the boys themselves carry the lions share of the blame, I still think they are as much as anything victims of adult failures in the same way the James became a victim of his mothers failure (however trivial you might think her failure was).

I actually agree with all of that, because I was not saying that the parent in the Bulger case should be absolved of all responsibility. Her behaviour was a contributory factor, undoubtedly, but is she wholly to blame, as some seem to be suggesting? Clearly not.



What really killed Jamie Bulger is a society that prefers to pass responsibility rather than tackle difficult social problems head on. It is very often children who are the victims (and I include Thompson and Venables as victims). And it is still happening - look at the case in Sheffield, where a 'father' repeated raped his daughters over a 35year period, despite being known to social services.

Quite true, though let's not be too 'down' about society. Such crimes have always been committed and always will be. To hear some people talk, and to read their views, one would think we should be amazed that every child isn't going around committing such evil deeds.

[Daniel]

Well of course she's going to feel guilty, thats natural. Its like the guy who's two children were killed on the M40 a couple of years ago by the premiership goalkeeper when he lost control of his Range Rover after a night out. He collided with the family and the two children lost their lives. The father is eaten up with guilt because he chose to take the children out that day, and feels partly responsible. Nobody would blame him, but its natural to feel partially to blame when an unforeseen circumstance tragically takes your children away.

Believe me Daniel when yourself and your wife have children, I can almost garrantee you'll experience a moment when you'll experience that sunken feeling that your children are out of sight. It may only be for a split second, but every parent has a moment like this. To condemn Denise Bulger I think goes abit far, and IMO she was extremely unlucky and will ultimately pay the price for the rest of her life.

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson from what I have read in reports were acting suspiciously before they abducted James. From CCTV they apparently approached another child in the minutes before, but abandoned the attempt. They were intent on taking a child that afternoon, and whether they originally had murder in mind, well we'll never know..
I know what you mean. But it's totally different if you're out doing what normal people do and someone comes along and hits your car.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I still find it hard to condemn Denise Bulger. We all make mistakes. Show me a parent whose toddler has never wandered out of site for a few anxious seconds and I'll show you a talking unicorn.

[Daniel]

I still find it hard to condemn Denise Bulger. We all make mistakes. Show me a parent whose toddler has never wandered out of site for a few anxious seconds and I'll show you a talking unicorn.
I'm not saying she's negligent to the extent the McCann's were, but her actions were as Ben said, contributing factors. All I'm saying is that perhaps her anger at the situation and the idea that she deserves to know where Jon Venables is or what he's done stems not only from the fact that her son was killed, but that she feels partly responsible for it happening to her son. The reality of the matter is that she failed her son by not protecting him as best she could.

[BeansBeansBeans]

The reality of the matter is that she failed her son by not protecting him as best she could.

This sentence displays a chronic lack of compassion.

[Daniel]

I was just comparing how parents blame themselves for things that are unforeseen. The chances of James Bulger being snatched that day were one in many thousand you could say, but Denise Bulger was extremely unlucky. I'm sure a child goes temporarily missing from their parents every 30 seconds across Britain in shopping centres, zoo's, theme parks etc, but a crime like this is committed every few years. Its a similar story with Sarah Payne who was out in the countryside with her family and was a hundred yards away in a field when she was abducted and murdered. It happens so rarely that people let their guard down, and unless we wrap our children in cotton wool, this sort of thing will happen from time to time. :)
Agreed. But it's still a contributory factor.

[BDunnell]

I'm not saying she's negligent to the extent the McCann's were, but her actions were as Ben said, contributing factors. All I'm saying is that perhaps her anger at the situation and the idea that she deserves to know where Jon Venables is or what he's done stems not only from the fact that her son was killed, but that she feels partly responsible for it happening to her son. The reality of the matter is that she failed her son by not protecting him as best she could.

As I said, and as you agree, her actions were a contributory factor. But just as this is very different from blaming her, so it is also very different from saying that she 'failed' her son. With hindsight, maybe, and her actions were probably somewhat unwise to say the least. But I think that suggestions of 'failure' or 'blame' are unnecessary.

[BDunnell]

I was just comparing how parents blame themselves for things that are unforeseen. The chances of James Bulger being snatched that day were one in many thousand you could say, but Denise Bulger was extremely unlucky. I'm sure a child goes temporarily missing from their parents every 30 seconds across Britain in shopping centres, zoo's, theme parks etc, but a crime like this is committed every few years. Its a similar story with Sarah Payne who was out in the countryside with her family and was a hundred yards away in a field when she was abducted and murdered. It happens so rarely that people let their guard down, and unless we wrap our children in cotton wool, this sort of thing will happen from time to time. :)

Absolutely. Society hasn't deteriorated to the extent many people think it has.

[Daniel]

As I said, and as you agree, her actions were a contributory factor. But just as this is very different from blaming her, so it is also very different from saying that she 'failed' her son. With hindsight, maybe, and her actions were probably somewhat unwise to say the least. But I think that suggestions of 'failure' or 'blame' are unnecessary.
I think the difference between saying that she failed her son/is to blame or that she didn't fail him and isn't to blame is you or I waking up on the wrong/right side of the bed in the morning. She's no monster I'll admit.

[NoahsGirl]

I also do not see the rationale for anyone knowing Jon Venebles' identity. How would that benefit anyone? I think the public are unhappy that information is being "kept" from them. Had we never known Venebles' identity, then we wouldn't be having this debate.

I too got a text naming Mr Calvert as Jon Venebles, but I deleted the text as I thought it was either an out of control rumour, or it didn't benefit me knowing.

Is playing a "blame game" really benefitting anyone? All the public really need to do is have faith in the justice system.

[Daniel]

I also do not see the rationale for anyone knowing Jon Venebles' identity. How would that benefit anyone? I think the public are unhappy that information is being "kept" from them. Had we never known Venebles' identity, then we wouldn't be having this debate.

I too got a text naming Mr Calvert as Jon Venebles, but I deleted the text as I thought it was either an out of control rumour, or it didn't benefit me knowing.

I think this sort of thing stems from people wanting to be involved. These days you can start up a Facebook campaign, you can send text messages, you can be interviewed on the news even if you're an ignorant/worthless fool.

personally I prefer to be hands off and just leave the law to take care of these things.