Paid Members DJ Kris Posted March 8, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2010 Did anyone see Mrs Fergus's interview on This Morning? Â No rational person would say that Denise Fergus should not have the right to access details of the murderers of her son. I'm a rational person, and yet I see no reason at all why she needs to know who they are now, where they are or why one of them is back inside. Unless there is reason to believe her or her family are at risk. What would you expect her to do with the information? Â But this is just making a circus out of it the Tories have got involved saying we should all have a right to know? Should we? Its got feck all to do with me its not in the purpose of the public interest for everyone to know is it? Â Imagine the reaction if either Venables or Thompson were outed here on UKFF as regular posters. So what if they were? We'd have a thread that'd probably end up in UKFF Gold, aside from that I'm not sure what we'd have lost by not knowing. Of course that Secret Santa gift from Steve19772010 may take on knew meaning. Â Aye I saw that this morning, sick of the sight of her tbh she's been all over the tv & papers demanding allsorts. I totally agree with your post and I'm glad I'm not the only who feels that way. Â Just be thankful that if you have a young son or daughter that you still have them every time you go to bed at night. Denise Fergus must be wondering what she done wrong to end up in the position she is in and she deserves the answers to any questions she is asking in this matter. End of. No, there is no end of, you don't post your opinion and decide it is so valid that no one else gets a say. It's shit what happened to her son, but enough already. She's not entitled to have any questions answered at all, she is entitled to get on with her life in peace if she chooses, but she doesn't. Why has she taken her kids out of school? Absolutely no need for them to be missing out, they weren't even born when James was murdered and they certainly aren't at risk from someone who is back in prison for undisclosed reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BionicRedneck Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 The Daily Mail comments section strikes again: Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members martyngnr Posted March 8, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2010 Glen Quagmire An evil bastard is an evil bastard, all of whom once they pass a certain point cannot be rehabilitated.  But you aren't even willing to give them the chance to be rehabilitated.   If the stories that have surfaced about Venables are true, then it is perfectly valid that Thompson may have also breached his "licence" but hasn't been called back because he hasn't committed yet an offence that is serious. If Thompson is brought back in however at any point in the future, then that's it. Game Over  Thomson "may" have breached his license. How they fuck do you know that? May, possibly, allegedly, if....come back when you actually have some FACTS to back up what you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 The Daily Mail comments section strikes again:Â Aren't the comments sections just regular Joe's posting their opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members DJ Kris Posted March 8, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2010 (edited) The Daily Mail comments section strikes again: Magnificant!  and what a wonderfully sweeping statement we get from accross the pond Never in the history of mankind has a Sociopath changed or been 'rehabilitated' or shown any remorse for his acts. They just go on to repeat them. Letting this murdering thug out of jail was incompetence of the highest order. Take him back and keep him there for life. - Eileen, Indiana USA, 08/3/2010 14:36  Then you have the fellow who feels it is condisending of "Useless" Jack Straw to announce later why he's back in prison as they have already read it in the Daily Mail. Well it MUST be true then  I'd love to be able to laugh, but sadly it's this sort of attitude that reinforces my view as to why we don't have the right to know everything Edited March 8, 2010 by DJ Kris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Glenn, re-read my post regarding your first point, seriously, you may have missed something.  I've missed nothing that I can see. There is significant personal (for those involved) and public interest in this case  Secondly, What if the two people were posters on here? Whats the issue? What are you trying to be agent provocateur about?  You mean to say that there wouldn't be some posters on here that wouldn't feel a little uncomfortable talking about John Cena's on-screen character or about the future direction of TNA with a child killer?  The Baby P thing you mentioned is yet another example of the press flexing its muscles to cause near panic and hysteria, to the point where Everyone involved in the social work and hospital side of things has afaik been made an example of because the case as been made public and everything has been made known.  Not sure what your point is here. I'm not terribly fond of the likes of The Sun and Daily Mail myself. I've two friends who are nurses at a local hospital and they didn't get dressing downs over the Baby P case. Neither was a cousin of mine who is a social worker herself. Maybe in your accusation of hysteria being caused, you are guilty of it yourself by not only using the word "Everyone" but also emphasising it.  Any misdemeanour has been set upon and those who have worked at Harringay Social Services whether involved in the case or not have had their careers wrecked by association to the 'Baby P' case, whether they were involved or not. Anything now associated with that case, including specifically, people who worked in the department but would have had little or no knowledge of Baby P and the case details are now a 'poisoned chalice', all because of righteous sense of justice.  I would agree with your last sentence that it is not fair on those who had no knowledge of the Baby P case. However I've no sympathy for those who were even slightly involved who didn't realise something somewhere was wrong.  You say want that kind of 'justice' in this case? Why? What 'good' could it possibly bring?  Closure. That is the very least Jamie's parents deserve. They have not yet got it. Whatever my views are on the Bulger case, if Jamie's parents are happy with the eventual outcome, that's what matters the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD L'Amour! Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 The Daily Mail comments section strikes again:Â Â Oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimufctna24 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I can sympathise with the mother and her actions and demands to be honest, it really doesnt bear thinking about if I had children if one got killed in such a graphic manner with her son did I doubt even the strongest willed of us would ever truly get over it even after 17 years, so whilst we may not agree with everything she says at least she has a excuse  Whilst I will never say "there just kids" its very hard to fathom how much morals come into play with two 11 year olds, I personally belive that the parents or someone else failed them somewhere along the line because I seriously doubt the orginal attack came from nowhere there must have been signs beforehand and when you get two bad eggs togeather or one bad egg and a troubled easily swayed lacky to lead astray (Colombine is a good example in that principle) the results are always dangerous, espicially when you factor in how young they were as they were at a age at 11 where they had the freedom to these things but not entirely the mora/reality aspect which grows more in your psyce as you get into your teens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 8, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2010 No, but then I'm against the death penalty full stop. I'm not doing anything to your opinions. I'm just showing up your logic.  My logic does not extend to executing people that don't wear seatbelts in the car. My reasoning is that people who commit serious criminal offences like murder are highly likely to commit a serious offence again once they're released. The rotating prison system in the USA is a great example of this (watch some programmes like Lock Up or Louis Theroux's documentary on San Quentin to know how many prisoners there are serial offenders that learn nothing from being in prison, and how officers and wardens easily predict that once they leave prison as free men, it won't be the last time they see them). For fucks sake, not even North Korea puts a bullet through the head of a driver who's parking meter has just expired though I suppose through your trolling you'd think I'd like to see the Juche idea be adopted in Britain.  Not sure how many times this had to be said. You say Venables reoffending retrospectively justifies his execution because it would have stopped the second offense. I say, following that same logic, that anyone committing a minor offense going on to murder retrospectively justifies them being executed for the minor offense.  The only difference is that while we both use the same fundamental logic, my clearly ridiculous example kills an adult to prevent a murder, while your supposedly sensible suggestion kills a child to prevent a currently unknown alleged offence which may be downloading child porn.  Oh, and as my example is hypothetical, the seatbelt evader in my example goes on to murder a child. And don't tell me no child murderer has ever driven without a seatbelt.  So we're both using your dumbass logic, but I've hung an adult and saved a child. You've hung a child and stopped a download. Your problem is that you have successfully outsmarted yourself to the point where you cannot tell the difference in morality of a driver not wearing a seatbelt and someone who tortures and murders two year old boys. There is no point going any further on this matter with your mong logic.  The point is that it's your logic. Second offense retrospectively justifies execution for first offense is YOUR LOGIC.  I've simply used examples to show why it is, in your own words, mong logic.  Happy to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 There are almost always early signs jimufctna24 but they are usually not picked up on or chalked up as kids just being kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 The Daily Mail comments section strikes again:Â Magnificant! Â and what a wonderfully sweeping statement we get from accross the pond Never in the history of mankind has a Sociopath changed or been 'rehabilitated' or shown any remorse for his acts. They just go on to repeat them. Letting this murdering thug out of jail was incompetence of the highest order. Take him back and keep him there for life. - Eileen, Indiana USA, 08/3/2010 14:36 Â Then you have the fellow who feels it is condisending of "Useless" Jack Straw to announce later why he's back in prison as they have already read it in the Daily Mail. Well it MUST be true then It must be great knowing you're better than them. Â It's just a pity that your spelling isn't as immaculate as your morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Did anyone see Mrs Fergus's interview on This Morning? Â No rational person would say that Denise Fergus should not have the right to access details of the murderers of her son. I'm a rational person, and yet I see no reason at all why she needs to know who they are now, where they are or why one of them is back inside. Unless there is reason to believe her or her family are at risk. What would you expect her to do with the information? Â But this is just making a circus out of it the Tories have got involved saying we should all have a right to know? Should we? Its got feck all to do with me its not in the purpose of the public interest for everyone to know is it? Â Imagine the reaction if either Venables or Thompson were outed here on UKFF as regular posters. So what if they were? We'd have a thread that'd probably end up in UKFF Gold, aside from that I'm not sure what we'd have lost by not knowing. Of course that Secret Santa gift from Steve19772010 may take on knew meaning. Â Aye I saw that this morning, sick of the sight of her tbh she's been all over the tv & papers demanding allsorts. I totally agree with your post and I'm glad I'm not the only who feels that way. Â Just be thankful that if you have a young son or daughter that you still have them every time you go to bed at night. Denise Fergus must be wondering what she done wrong to end up in the position she is in and she deserves the answers to any questions she is asking in this matter. End of. No, there is no end of, you don't post your opinion and decide it is so valid that no one else gets a say. It's shit what happened to her son, but enough already. She's not entitled to have any questions answered at all, she is entitled to get on with her life in peace if she chooses, but she doesn't. Why has she taken her kids out of school? Absolutely no need for them to be missing out, they weren't even born when James was murdered and they certainly aren't at risk from someone who is back in prison for undisclosed reasons. What gives you the right to say that she doesn't have the right to information then? These two murderers have been put in to an extremely rare situation of having their identities after release being protected from the general public, but there is no reason for Jamie's parents not to have at least some access to these details and allow her to confront the killers of her child as long as they do not do anything that would normal break the law (e.g. assault, stalking) and that she could not pass such information to a third party. No different to any parent or sibling that may want to confront a killer once they're released. As for taking her other children out of school, maybe you have never had a breakdown bad enough whereby even though it may not affect her other children directly, it affects her ability to look after them and/or that she cannot trust her children to be looked after by others out of her sight. Can you blame her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 These two murderers have been put in to an extremely rare situation of having their identities after release being protected from the general public, but there is no reason for Jamie's parents not to have at least some access to these details and allow her to confront the killers of her child as long as they do not do anything that would normal break the law (e.g. assault, stalking) and that she could not pass such information to a third party. The problem is, once you give the Bulger family the right to confront their sons killer, you'll be opening the door for everyone to claim that they should also be allowed to confront the killer of their family member, aren't you? Â It's just not feasible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimufctna24 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 There are almost always early signs jimufctna24 but they are usually not picked up on or chalked up as kids just being kids. True I can see that point of view for a lesser crime but with the graphic nature of this crime I belive that there had to be some serious warning signs about the mental state which would make others around them take serious notice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 The Daily Mail comments section strikes again:Â Â Oh dear. Before anyone else tries to make the link, no, that isn't me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts