freaky 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. Something people haven't noticed... 102 people have hit the dislike button to that post. 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 It must be great knowing you're better than them. It's just a pity that your spelling isn't as immaculate as your morals. Well it certainly makes me feel good to know I don't have to resort to the old spelling flame. I'm not really sure why you decided to have a pop at me. If you didn't agree you couldn't have at least put an alternative view across.  What gives you the right to say that she doesn't have the right to information then? I haven't decided, the Government have decided that it would be better if the public don't know and since they've been open about that I believe that they are doing it for the right reasons. As such the Mother doesn't need to know either, otherwise they'd have already told her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Something people haven't noticed... 102 people have hit the dislike button to that post. Would you expect any other response? Seriously? Â There's no way that anyone can justify applying the death sentence to children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freaky Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Something people haven't noticed... 102 people have hit the dislike button to that post. Would you expect any other response? Seriously? Â There's no way that anyone can justify applying the death sentence to children. Glen Quagmire seems to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire 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 Good post. I refuse to call for what Venables and Thompson did at the time kids or children, because to carry out such a sick and twisted murder on a toddler means that they have lost all childhood innocence by that point even if they had not physically and in some ways emotionally not became adults. However they knew exactly what they were doing. The video "Child's Play 3" was reckoned to be a major factor and its naming brought back the 80's "Video Nasties" hype. From everything that has been written about the murder and trial, Venables seemed to be the bad egg and Thompson was the easily led one - but he was still willing to go along with whatever Venables was doing. As for their parents, I've believed for a long time now that if anyone aged under 18 commits an offence where a custodial sentence would apply to an adult, then the offender's parents or appointed guardians should also be subject to punishment unless they can prove that they tried to stop the offence from taking place at the time. In the Bulger murder trial, IMO both parents of Venables and Thompson should have been jailed preferably for life but at least 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire 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. Most murderer's, if they are released from jail, don't normally have anonymity protection given to them so for the relatives of the murdered it isn't too hard to track them down normally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Quagmire Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 It must be great knowing you're better than them. It's just a pity that your spelling isn't as immaculate as your morals. Well it certainly makes me feel good to know I don't have to resort to the old spelling flame. I'm not really sure why you decided to have a pop at me. If you didn't agree you couldn't have at least put an alternative view across.  What gives you the right to say that she doesn't have the right to information then? I haven't decided, the Government have decided that it would be better if the public don't know and since they've been open about that I believe that they are doing it for the right reasons. As such the Mother doesn't need to know either, otherwise they'd have already told her. Do you believe that everything the Government does is for the "right reasons"? Like going into Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 8, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2010 Jack Straw confirms no details to be released: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8555977.stm  Piece also notes no charges have been filed against Venables so far, but an investigation is under way. 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) 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. Most murderer's, if they are released from jail, don't normally have anonymity protection given to them so for the relatives of the murdered it isn't too hard to track them down normally. But there are 2 unusual factors about this case. Firstly the unusually big media storm that was kicked off and has continued to float to the surface has meant it's necessary to protect their identities, but also because of how young they were it becomes much easier since their appearance will be so much more altered than that of an adult going into prison. Â Obviously it's an unual step, but this was an unusual case. Â Do you believe that everything the Government does is for the "right reasons"? Like going into Iraq? Not at all, but on this occasion I do believe they are doing it for the right reasons. I can't see any other motivation. Edited March 8, 2010 by DJ Kris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members martyngnr Posted March 8, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2010 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) Â Perhaps you should read up on this case a bit better and maybe, just maybe you will get the name of the victim right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitman89762000 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 (edited) Glenn have you failed to consider the fact that IF all or some of the details relating to venables re-arrest/return to prison were to be revealed to the general public that IF venables was charged with whatever offence he's currently being investigated for his lawyers could call for a mistrial* at any potential proceedings by claiming the jury has been potentially predjudiced by everything theyve read/heard should the government release that info??? Â Hence why they're keeping quiet about this. Â *I'm assuming they could claim that anyway if such details were to be released..I'm sure someone like lister could probably correct me on this though. Edited March 8, 2010 by hitman89762000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 (edited) Okay from my original post that you discussed.  Why all the need for the publicity and the anger and the outcry, surely it should be between Denise Fergus, the CPS (or Whomever), The Justice Secretary, whomever has been involved in what has caused his recall and..... thats it.  So you missed that then re who the case should involve? Also, Why is it in the public interest? What makes it public interest worthy?  Secondly Child Killers on the UKFF.. Okay.. Firstly accept that many people on here have broken laws (no matter how minor) So effectively you are, or have spoken to people who are 'criminals' in the eyes of the law, as a matter of course. How does that make you feel?  'We' dont know everything about who posts on this forum what their private lives are and indeed who they are in real life, nor should we unless they feel it is relevant to disclose it. So you could be talking about Cena gimmicks with a child killer and wouldnt know.. Are you really that paranoid/ have a need to control about things you have to know everything, because that will make it easier or something?  Regarding the paper thing, did I mention The Mail and The Sun specifically? The use of 'everyone' embolded was also substantiated by 'afaik' which meant I wasnt 100 per cent sure, but based on what I have read and picked up from various media, that this was the case. It is widely known that the Baby P case Judge and Ofsted condemned the whole of Harringay Social Services from Sharon Shoesmith down, which means implicitly if you worked for them then you have that 'blot' and are guilty by association.  Regarding the pressure and the media and the medical side of the whole issue.. The Harringey Independent has This on the Doctor who didnt spot the broken back. But its all her fault that the Baby was tortured and killed and not those that did the torturing isnt it? Its definately naff all to do with the media persecution and subsequent media which hunt that has followed  The nurses you mentioned were involved in the case? or worked on a different department? Same Hopsital? Again afaik it was casualty that came in for a knocking in the press. Ditto for your cousin.. She works for Haringey Council? Did she work there at the time? How has the OFSTED inspection/Control, Constant media intrusion inc a Panorama show iirc effected the way she works on a daily basis? What are her chances of getting a job in another area as a social work with 'that' stigma attached?  How can you pass judgement on those who were 'slightly' involved? You make them seem as bad as the real perpetrators, those that abused and killed the Baby. Does that mean by association that family/mates/colleagues of John Venables and Robert Thompson ( then and now) are therefore guilty by association as well?  Closure... The boys were tried and convicted of their crime and have served that time, what other closure do you want? They have been punished by the law of the land for their crimes, they have served their time and have been released? Edited March 8, 2010 by patdfb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Glen Quagmire is the new Hardcore_Harry! 13 pages and still going strong. Awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Glen Quagmire is the new Hardcore_Harry! 13 pages and still going strong. Awesome. Don't drag me into your little battle of morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seratonin Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 The Daily Mail comments section strikes again:Â Â I'm pretty sure they're taking the piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts