NO! Not in my name you don't

GavH

Giving those two little scrotes who killed James Bulger new identities; I got that, understood why but didn't necessarily agree with it.

Now the papers are suggesting another £250,000 will be spent setting Jon Venables up with another identity now that his other one has been compromised because of HIS behaviour. Behaviour we're not even allowed to know about.

Has this country gone fecking mad or is it just run by a bunch of completly out of touch loons? :evil: :evil: :evil:

shouldbeinbed

yes and yes

cheaper than keeping him in jail though.

but he's a grown adult now and presumably knows what he's done and what people think of it, if he's stupid or inadequate enough to place himself in such danger then he gets cut loose completely to take his chances in society.

mroli

Firstly, I remember the James Bulger case and how horrific it was. However I also remember with shame how the public, stirred up by the media, reacted. Partly I guess out of vicarious guilt that they weren't able to prevent the death of an innocent 2 year old and partly out of disbelief that these kids were able to do this terrible thing.

But what you have to remember is that Bulger's two killers were both children themselves and the criminal courts have to look at things dispassionately and operate within the constraints of the law. Therefore stuff like the background of the killers, the lack of support within their lives had to be considered, their young age and lack of knowledge of the wrongness and consequences of their actions have to be considered.

I also don't think that anyone can argue with the fact that these guys had to be provided with false identities when they were released. Having grown up in institutions for most of their formative years, is it any surprise that one of them reoffended when he was released? And it is only the subsequent media hounding that is costing another 250k - if they hadn't reported it, it would never have been an issue.

And if he isn't provided with a new identity, it is just going to cost us even more than £250k to either provide him with further protection or to investigate, prosecute and jail the person who inevitably attacks him.

Ben6899

mroli wrote:

Firstly, I remember the James Bulger case and how horrific it was.

Was it 1993? I was 13 then and recall being horrified and totally disbelieving that a couple of kids two/three years younger than me could have done what they did.

mroli wrote:

But what you have to remember is that Bulger's two killers were both children themselves... had to be considered, their young age and lack of knowledge of the wrongness and consequences of their actions have to be considered.

I agree.

mroli wrote:

I also don't think that anyone can argue with the fact that these guys had to be provided with false identities

Of course.

mroli wrote:

And if he isn't provided with a new identity, it is just going to cost us even more than £250k to either provide him with further protection or to investigate, prosecute and jail the person who inevitably attacks him.

He's a grown man now (27 I think) so he understands what he did and he fully understands the conditions of his bail/parole. If he chooses to fuck up and ends up back in the clink then he MUST know the media are going to be all over it, whether rightly or wrongly. Forget the protection, forget the identity change; he's not worth it.

There: I've just saved the country 10no. Pinarello Dogma Di2s

wicked

mroli wrote:

Firstly, I remember the James Bulger case and how horrific it was. However I also remember with shame how the public, stirred up by the media, reacted. Partly I guess out of vicarious guilt that they weren't able to prevent the death of an innocent 2 year old and partly out of disbelief that these kids were able to do this terrible thing.

But what you have to remember is that Bulger's two killers were both children themselves and the criminal courts have to look at things dispassionately and operate within the constraints of the law. Therefore stuff like the background of the killers, the lack of support within their lives had to be considered, their young age and lack of knowledge of the wrongness and consequences of their actions have to be considered.

I also don't think that anyone can argue with the fact that these guys had to be provided with false identities when they were released. Having grown up in institutions for most of their formative years, is it any surprise that one of them reoffended when he was released? And it is only the subsequent media hounding that is costing another 250k - if they hadn't reported it, it would never have been an issue.

And if he isn't provided with a new identity, it is just going to cost us even more than £250k to either provide him with further protection or to investigate, prosecute and jail the person who inevitably attacks him.

I mostly agree but the porblem I have is it's all vey well saying they were children but they are either pure evil or damaged goods to do what they did, either way the chances of them being good boys now are remote imho.
What ever happens there will never be an ideal solution but the prospect of either of them getting married having kids etc whilst keeping their past secret is not something I relish. It could be one of your daughters with one of these murderers.

simonaspinall

I still find it amazing that the tabloid hysteria of this country doesn't recognise that the Bulger killers came from a horrifically deprived background and had a disturbing upbringing, committed a horrendous offence and then were tried and convicted and judged by society like adults.

These boys should've been taken into care, not prison - How can two boys that were so young be tried for criminal intent of that magnitude?

It's their parents who should be doing the stretch.

Imagine if they had all this time in rehabilitation, counselling, training and education - Then they could've been brought up and guided where their parents failed to do so.

But of course, the Daily Mail always knows best and they can be left to be set upon by a vigilante mob.

Sad.

cee

simonaspinall wrote:

Sad.

for me...this sums the whole mess up.

rick_chasey

It's as much the fault of people who would lynch the kids if they found out who they were.

Beyond the media coverage, this is a largely similar case to those Doncaster kids last year.

Probably because there wasn't a grainy CCTV footage that was permenantly shown on TV by every network, that case isn't as well remembered.

I wonder what would happen if the lynchmob were caught on CCTV....

Eitherway, they're as much to blame for the cost of giving people new identities.

South Bound

Christ, they were 10 years old and this has destroyed their lives. It is society and their immediate environment (parents, whatever) that led them where they went, I don't believe anyone is born evil. So should we protect them, yes, otherwise we might just as well have executed 2 10-year olds for something they probably were not aware they were doing. Who here would have liked to execute a 10-year old?

Nothing can ever make what they did right or forgiveable, but we have to understand it and make sure kids in their position and potential victims are protected.

Smokin Joe

I can think of more than one person I went to school with who would have been capable of getting carried away with what started with just bullying and went to a similar level of torture had the circumstances prevailed at a given time. Once they matured they grew up to be respectable citizens leading unblemished lives. It is easy to forget how little moral compass children of that age can have, they are capable of behaving like animals if prrmitted to and that is what Thompson and Venables were allowed to do by inadequate parents.

William Golding was chillingly accurate when he wrote Lord of The Flies.

don_don

If the papers are suggesting it then it must be true...

Westerberg

Smokin Joe wrote:

William Golding was chillingly accurate when he wrote Lord of The Flies.

+++1you got there just before me!

daviesee

South Bound wrote:

Christ, they were 10 years old and this has destroyed their lives. It is society and their immediate environment (parents, whatever) that led them where they went, I don't believe anyone is born evil. So should we protect them, yes, otherwise we might just as well have executed 2 10-year olds for something they probably were not aware they were doing. Who here would have liked to execute a 10-year old?

Nothing can ever make what they did right or forgiveable, but we have to understand it and make sure kids in their position and potential victims are protected.

Shame for the poor wee souls :roll:

What about the victim, his friends and his family? A lifetime of torture

I believe some of the children I went to school with most certainly were born evil.

Even sadder is the fact that the public don't even know the true extent of the attrocities that were done to James Bulger. "They" want to "protect" our sensibilities :?

blackpanther

simonaspinall wrote:

I still find it amazing that the tabloid hysteria of this country doesn't recognise that the Bulger killers came from a horrifically deprived background and had a disturbing upbringing, committed a horrendous offence and then were tried and convicted and judged by society like adults.

These boys should've been taken into care, not prison - How can two boys that were so young be tried for criminal intent of that magnitude?

It's their parents who should be doing the stretch.

Imagine if they had all this time in rehabilitation, counselling, training and education - Then they could've been brought up and guided where their parents failed to do so.

But of course, the Daily Mail always knows best and they can be left to be set upon by a vigilante mob.

Sad.

this is a fishing exercise right?

If not would you feel the same if it happened to your children brother ir sister?

next youll be telling us that the state takes a more balanced and respnsible view precisely because it isnt involved?

blackpanther

South Bound wrote:

Christ, they were 10 years old and this has destroyed their lives. It is society and their immediate environment (parents, whatever) that led them where they went, I don't believe anyone is born evil. So should we protect them, yes, otherwise we might just as well have executed 2 10-year olds for something they probably were not aware they were doing. Who here would have liked to execute a 10-year old?

Nothing can ever make what they did right or forgiveable, but we have to understand it and make sure kids in their position and potential victims are protected.

what f king apologist bolloc ks. children of ten know what theyre doing, they might not fully understand the implication of their actions but they know whats right and wrong. the coding for right and wrong is set at a very early age these two will never embody mainstream culture.

Gangreen is best removed since it cant be cured. and bleeding hearts are not for surgeons.

ExeterSimon

Look hard enough on the web and you can find full details of what those 2 little scrotes did to Jamie. Hitting him with bricks and batteries is just the tip of the horrific iceberg.

Didn't know what they were doing?

Bollox.

simonaspinall

I'm not saying that their actions weren't horrific - I bet if you'd googled hard enough you can find out how they were brought up - You're moralising based on the fact that you feel you know what is right and wrong as you probably had a pretty good upbringing and with an adult perspective.

These kids didn't even have an upbringing, weren't given love like you were, weren't disciplined when they did something wrong...they are in effect almost more 'animalistic' as their socialization didn't happen.

It's an absolutely horrendous (if you can use the word so lightly) crime - But you have to have criminal intent to commit the crime - Are you suggesting that these child criminals knew the gravity and wrongness of their actions?

They had a terrible upbringing, have been tried and convicted by public furore and vigilante mob hatred, will have to live the rest of their lives seeing their past dragged up and the constant threat of their identity being revealed.

As I said in my previous post - The people who this anger should be aimed at is their parents as they created this. They were young children, not criminals who didn't have parental love and guidance to become normal law-abiding citizens.

It is a deeply upsetting thing that's happened.

Bobbinogs

Sorry Simon, but for all the world you appear to be saying that these two killers are the victims. I don't buy that. Lot's of children grow up in difficult conditions and make the best of the scant locker in life that they have been given.

The phrase "lock 'em up and throw away the key" is oft used but never more applicable.

simonaspinall

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... 06476.html

Yes a lot of children do have bad upbringings but probably not as bad as the Bulger twins. I still find it difficult how you can accuse two children who were tragically neglected and abused and committed murder of being criminals.

To be convicted of a criminal offence implies that you had criminal intent - I'm suggesting that these boys were socially and emotionally unstable and very disturbed.

That led to the chain of events which resulted in the death of an infant.

The victims of this are the two twins, Jamie Bulger and his parents who will ahve this hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives.

As I said before - It is the parents who should be in the dock. The twins are not monsters or criminals but products of a terrible neglecting and abusive short life before they killed.

They were 9 and 11 - They needed to be put in a home where they could have the counselling and psychiatric treatment that was needed - what's putting them in a young offender's institute going to do???

skinson

Christ, they were 10 years old and this has destroyed their lives. It is society and their immediate environment (parents, whatever) that led them where they went, I don't believe anyone is born evil. So should we protect them, yes, otherwise we might just as well have executed 2 10-year olds for something they probably were not aware they were doing. Who here would have liked to execute a 10-year old?

Nothing can ever make what they did right or forgiveable, but we have to understand it and make sure kids in their position and potential victims are protected.

What a load of old TAT!! 10 years old and they didn't know what they were doing? BOLLOX
I knew what I was doing at ten, I knew it was wrong to steal from wollies but I still did it! I knew it was wrong to throw stones at buses but I still did it. And in answer to your question at the time I thought they should be wiped off the face of the earth the scheming little scumbags.
Dave

mroli

Legally you are wrong though. The age of criminal intent (I believe) in the UK is 12. That mens, to commit a crime and be convicted you meet two tests "actus reus" (the act of doing the crime - which is clear in this case) and the "mens reus" (the knowledge of what you are doing). In this case the kids were of an age where they did not know.

Yes - to all of you that say you knew the difference between right and wrong at that age, I'm sure you did. But you need to think of what conditions these children grow up in, the abuse and lack of family support, instruction and love that they suffer.

And to those of you that say "if this happened to one of your children, what would you do?", I truly don't know. But I hope that I would be as understanding and noble as the Ap Rhys Price family whose son Tom was murdered by young muggers on his own doorstep. The foundation set up in their name helps the very sort of kids that murdered their son for an oyster card and a phone.

If you want to make a difference - don't come on her and wail. Help, do something - I can rec Kids Company if you are in london. www.kidsco.org. Do some mentoring and play your part in society.

Chip \'oyler

mroli wrote:

Legally you are wrong though. The age of criminal intent (I believe) in the UK is 12. That mens, to commit a crime and be convicted you meet two tests "actus reus" (the act of doing the crime - which is clear in this case) and the "mens reus" (the knowledge of what you are doing). In this case the kids were of an age where they did not know.

Yes - to all of you that say you knew the difference between right and wrong at that age, I'm sure you did. But you need to think of what conditions these children grow up in, the abuse and lack of family support, instruction and love that they suffer.

And to those of you that say "if this happened to one of your children, what would you do?", I truly don't know. But I hope that I would be as understanding and noble as the Ap Rhys Price family whose son Tom was murdered by young muggers on his own doorstep. The foundation set up in their name helps the very sort of kids that murdered their son for an oyster card and a phone.

If you want to make a difference - don't come on her and wail. Help, do something - I can rec Kids Company if you are in london. www.kidsco.org. Do some mentoring and play your part in society.

All great points. But do you agree that the two Bulger killers needed to be punished?

fast as fupp

skinson wrote:

Christ, they were 10 years old and this has destroyed their lives. It is society and their immediate environment (parents, whatever) that led them where they went, I don't believe anyone is born evil. So should we protect them, yes, otherwise we might just as well have executed 2 10-year olds for something they probably were not aware they were doing. Who here would have liked to execute a 10-year old?

Nothing can ever make what they did right or forgiveable, but we have to understand it and make sure kids in their position and potential victims are protected.

What a load of old TAT!! 10 years old and they didn't know what they were doing? BOLLOX
I knew what I was doing at ten, I knew it was wrong to steal from wollies but I still did it! I knew it was wrong to throw stones at buses but I still did it. And in answer to your question at the time I thought they should be wiped off the face of the earth the scheming little scumbags.
Dave

are you advocating the execution of children?

simonaspinall

fast as fupp wrote:

skinson wrote:

Christ, they were 10 years old and this has destroyed their lives. It is society and their immediate environment (parents, whatever) that led them where they went, I don't believe anyone is born evil. So should we protect them, yes, otherwise we might just as well have executed 2 10-year olds for something they probably were not aware they were doing. Who here would have liked to execute a 10-year old?

Nothing can ever make what they did right or forgiveable, but we have to understand it and make sure kids in their position and potential victims are protected.

What a load of old TAT!! 10 years old and they didn't know what they were doing? BOLLOX
I knew what I was doing at ten, I knew it was wrong to steal from wollies but I still did it! I knew it was wrong to throw stones at buses but I still did it. And in answer to your question at the time I thought they should be wiped off the face of the earth the scheming little scumbags.
Dave

are you advocating the execution of children?

I think advocating the systematic shutdown of Tabloid Newspapers is what is needed.

skinson

are you advocating the execution of children?

Looks like I am!

simonaspinall

skinson wrote:

are you advocating the execution of children?

Looks like I am!

Yes, that'll prevent more 9 and 11 year olds from crime

Westerberg

skinson wrote:

Christ, they were 10 years old and this has destroyed their lives. It is society and their immediate environment (parents, whatever) that led them where they went, I don't believe anyone is born evil. So should we protect them, yes, otherwise we might just as well have executed 2 10-year olds for something they probably were not aware they were doing. Who here would have liked to execute a 10-year old?

Nothing can ever make what they did right or forgiveable, but we have to understand it and make sure kids in their position and potential victims are protected.

What a load of old TAT!! 10 years old and they didn't know what they were doing? BOLLOX
I knew what I was doing at ten, I knew it was wrong to steal from wollies but I still did it! I knew it was wrong to throw stones at buses but I still did it. And in answer to your question at the time I thought they should be wiped off the face of the earth the scheming little scumbags.
Dave

Good one Dave, the death penalty for children. What other forward thinking measures do you propose for the advancement of civilization? Would you agree if they brought in chopping off of hands for shoplifting?

fast as fupp

skinson wrote:

are you advocating the execution of children?

Looks like I am!

then youre just as much a barbarian as the perpetrators of that crime, more so probably.

Frank the tank

Venables and Thompson, by doing what they did actually improved their lot. They had special education for their remaning school lives (better than most state funded children) I had to battle like f**K to get my autistic son extra care.

They served next to no time actually in prison when they came of age, and to top it off were given new identities to protect them on release. Fair does.

However Venables is now a 27 year old adult and he IMHO has spurned his second chance (James Bulger hasn't had a second chance) and should now face the music (tough sh1t baby if you get a seeing to) You have no-one to blame but your lowlife self.

mroli

Chip \'oyler wrote:

All great points. But do you agree that the two Bulger killers needed to be punished?

Well, that in itself is a good question - what is jail meant to be - is it punishment/rehabilitation or both? I don't know what studies have been done on the effect of imprisonment on 11 year old children and I'm not an expert on this sort of thing by any stretch of the imagination.

If you intentionally kill someone, then a prison sentence results. If there are extenuating circumstances then that sentence can be reduced or alternative conditions can be placed on it.

In this case, I believe a custodial sentence was probably right - and was an opportunity for the "State" to try and rehabilitate the murderers. The fact that Venables is back in jail shows how hard that job is (although we have no idea what he has done and we don't really need to know to be honest).

As for the nature versus nurture thing - I believe a lot more kids are made "bad" than are born "bad". I also think that a 11 year old will have no comprehension about what a jail sentence for murder means if he or she is beaten, abused, growing up with no love, no care and no hope. And surrounded by violence in the media/in film/tv and on computer games etc. It becomes a way of life. It is areally hard, emotional topic and I think some of the responss on here, even if they are part of an internet "persona" are a pretty sad kneejerk reaction to be fair.

Frank the tank

I was reared in a good family, and believe me I knew right from wrong and what would (supposedly) happen to me if I transgressed.

I would say that a lot of youngsters are brought up in awful circumstances (chances are "baby P" had he not been murdered, would have turned out like Venables/Thompson et al) but they know if they do wrong to run away from the police. Therefore is it not fair to assume if you commit an offence (at any age) and then (run away) you do indeed know you have done wrong.