So what do you want to happen to Venables and people convicted of similar crimes?
Should they forfeit all rights to protection from harm provided by society because of their crime?
Please help us out here
I'm not arguing against you here just furthering your point, but if you wouldn't pull the trigger yourself, then you don't have the strength of your convictions and don't truely believe what you're saying.
As I said and was castigated for previously,I believe that she has become a professional victim. Her bitterness drives her to continue to 'hound' these offenders. But I believe that focussing on them,could enable her to distract from other feelings, but that is my own personal opinion. Dang, there I go being meanspirited again!
:eek::eek::eek:
i think i'm too faint hearted for this threads.:( It's not her role to be reasonable about her child's murder, is ours as a society.
She probably doesn't have the right to know but I don't think its unreasonable for her to expect this. I don't expect her to be totally rational about this so I can hardly judge her for it.
This pretty much sums up my feelings. I don't really think she has the right to know, but I can't blame her for wanting to know all the same. I doubt anyone could ever get over what happened to her son and family.
I still dont understand why SHE feels she has more right than others to know.
I think everyone has as much right to know as everyone else!! Just because she has campaigned against them being let out, she wants to be able to say "told you so"-which she would have every right to do...
But why does she think that SHE neds to know more than other people. For example if has has abused another child, I think it would be that childs family who should know it was him before anyone else.
In theory the crime committed against her son has been brought to justice, and the boys "did their time"..so case closed. (Although I think they should of been hung drawn and quartered for what they did, and that still probably wouldnt be justice)
So in effect what he has done now is actually nothing to do with her or her son. (again im saying theoreticly)
As they have "new identities" does that mean they are 2 different people? ?
i think i'm too faint hearted for this threads.:( It's not her role to be reasonable about her child's murder, is ours as a society.
Which we could probably do better if she wasn't standing at the sidelines like The Punisher's Cheerleader, egging on some pretty nasty thoughts and ideas of her own.
There is a difference between an excuse and a proffered explanation. Nothing can excuse what they did, but there were reasons to found in the background that shaped them.
No, the vast majority of people from such background don't turn around and murder, but some do. For example: victims of sexual abuse are more likely to become abusers. Does that excuse their crimes? Again no, but it does provide an explantion and gives some insight into why people commit such crimes.
Because they were ten years old and not capable of full cognitive thought. Not capable of understanding the consequences of what they were doing or of the pain it would cause the family.
That's also the reason they were given lenient sentences in a 'cushy' prison. It wasn't meant as a punishment, it was meant as rehabilitation.
Unless of course you want children to have the vote, be able to work and pay taxes, take out loans and buy houses now, as well as be treated in the same way as an adult would in a murder case such as this?
I agree she did! And protected they must be, however hideous they and their crimes are.
Everyone deserves a fair trial, and that is one, which as far as possible is not coloured but emotion or prejudices.
This is why Denise Fergus, should have no say in anything to do with the offenders, and there is no reason why she should be informed of anything to do with the legal process.
I still dont understand why SHE feels she has more right than others to know.
I think everyone has as much right to know as everyone else!! Just because she has campaigned against them being let out, she wants to be able to say "told you so"-which she would have every right to do...
I suppose she feels that way because you can't expect her to be rational about these things. She lost her son in horrific circumstances, so I can understand why she might now feel that she deserves to know why Venables was sent back to prison. Not that that means I think she should be told.
We can be more objective, because we weren't in her position.
I suppose she feels that way because you can't expect her to be rational about these things. She lost her son in horrific circumstances, so I can understand why she might now feel that she deserves to know why Venables was sent back to prison. Not that that means I think she should be told.
We can be more objective, because we weren't in her position.
But sadly the tabloid media don't want an objective or rational standpoint - so they just fuel the situation by camping outside her home. Morons! :mad:
Which we could probably do better if she wasn't standing at the sidelines like The Punisher's Cheerleader, egging on some pretty nasty thoughts and ideas of her own.
Oh yes, because she needs a PR team to make the public turn against child killers. A very difficult task she has ahead of her. No one in this country is disgusted with those two. We need her everyday on TV to remind us that child murderer are horrible, we might forget.:rolleyes:
I can totally understand her position, that's exactly she is not the one that is going to judge him.
But sadly the tabloid media don't want an objective or rational standpoint - so they just fuel the situation by camping outside her home. Morons! :mad:
The media also seem to want to prejudice any possible future trials that Venables may have to face but they will presumably blame the legal system for that, rather admitting it is any fault of their own making.
The media also seem to want to prejudice any possible future trials that Venables may have to face but they will presumably blame the legal system for that, rather admitting it is any fault of their own making.
Exactly - this will just be a total farce. I believe strongly in freedom of the media - but not to make a travesty of the judicial system so they can sell a few more shoddy chip wrappers and add to the pain and distress of a grieving mother and her family.
I am surprised and also somewhat heartened that most politicians haven't taken the easy way out with a knee jerk reaction that panders to the mob and have actually said the best route to follow is that of legal procedure, despite the taunting of the tabloids.
If they listen to what 'the people' want maybe they would be confused by this contributor to the Mail Online:
"We should have hung them when they were ten. Killing children is wrong and should be punished by death.
It doesnt matter what people have done in their past, all that matters is what sort of person they are now.
What an incredibly reasonable statement. Makes is almost sound like it was just an ufortunate apple scrumping incident.
But lets not be shy here. Lets call it what it is. And change your quote a bit. "It doesn't matter if a person has premeditatedly kidnapped, tortured and murdered a helpless toddler, all that matters is what sort of person they are now. "
I am surprised and also somewhat heartened that most politicians haven't taken the easy way out with a knee jerk reaction that panders to the mob and have actually said the best route to follow is that of legal procedure, despite the taunting of the tabloids.
If they listen to what 'the people' want maybe they would be confused by this contributor to the Mail Online:
"We should have hung them when they were ten. Killing children is wrong and should be punished by death.
I'll refer you tojoxj and Cult of Z-List to my previous post. They were TEN YEAR OLD KIDS. Not fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. That's what going through puberty is for. If you want to treat them the same way as an adult murderer, then why not go the whole hog and give children the vote or let them buy houses and pay tax etc?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Here is another one from the same source:
Clearly Venables is insane and should have been locked away, in hindsight before he murdered James Bulger but after the murder he should never have been released. His eyes are empty, hollow and evil.
- Sheriff, Worcester, England, 8/3/2010 1:13
The media also seem to want to prejudice any possible future trials that Venables may have to face but they will presumably blame the legal system for that, rather admitting it is any fault of their own making.
Precisely. It is almost as if they want to scupper a fair trial, which will ensure he gets off whether he's guilty of a new offence or not.
But sadly the tabloid media don't want an objective or rational standpoint - so they just fuel the situation by camping outside her home. Morons! :mad:
Oh I agree and the Sun seems to be the worst at the moment for trying to get the info. The only reason I think the Sun is doing it is to get some forgiveness on Mersyside, they want people to read the paper again. So if they can "help" Denise maybe they think that the City of Liverpool will forgive them, I dont think Liverpool will forgive the sun for a long long time.
I'll refer you tojoxj and Cult of Z-List to my previous post. They were TEN YEAR OLD KIDS. Not fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. That's what going through puberty is for. If you want to treat them the same way as an adult murderer, then why not go the whole hog and give children the vote or let them buy houses and pay tax etc?
You can't have it both ways.
What rot!!! How can you compare knowing basic right from wrong to understanding the intricacies of voting / house buying :eek: :eek:
Yes they were children, but does that really excuse them from taking responsibilty from what they did??? Surely if they go so far as to murder another child without understanding the consequences then they have to learn the bloody consequences??
I'll refer you tojoxj and Cult of Z-List to my previous post. They were TEN YEAR OLD KIDS. Not fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. That's what going through puberty is for. If you want to treat them the same way as an adult murderer, then why not go the whole hog and give children the vote or let them buy houses and pay tax etc?
You can't have it both ways.
at the age of 10 they would of had at least 5 years of education..I knew what was right and wrong, and probably did since I started talking.
I'll refer you tojoxj and Cult of Z-List to my previous post. They were TEN YEAR OLD KIDS. Not fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. That's what going through puberty is for. If you want to treat them the same way as an adult murderer, then why not go the whole hog and give children the vote or let them buy houses and pay tax etc?
You can't have it both ways.
Quite so - if only life was as cut and dried as that. I find it sad that some people cannot find it within them to at least try to take on board the appalling home circumstances that these boys endured.
Yes, we all know there are people who have emerged successfully from deprived homes where they did not enjoy the best of everything or where there was violence or systematic abuse. But the fact that Venables and Thomson did not surely points to something fundamentally wrong whereby they did not survive their upbringings unscathed.
If all they were exposed to was brutality, abuse, lack of care and an absence of affection, basic essentials and discipline, what did either boy have as his guidance or role model?
Comments
I'm not arguing against you here just furthering your point, but if you wouldn't pull the trigger yourself, then you don't have the strength of your convictions and don't truely believe what you're saying.
:eek::eek::eek:
i think i'm too faint hearted for this threads.:( It's not her role to be reasonable about her child's murder, is ours as a society.
This pretty much sums up my feelings. I don't really think she has the right to know, but I can't blame her for wanting to know all the same. I doubt anyone could ever get over what happened to her son and family.
I think everyone has as much right to know as everyone else!! Just because she has campaigned against them being let out, she wants to be able to say "told you so"-which she would have every right to do...
But why does she think that SHE neds to know more than other people. For example if has has abused another child, I think it would be that childs family who should know it was him before anyone else.
In theory the crime committed against her son has been brought to justice, and the boys "did their time"..so case closed. (Although I think they should of been hung drawn and quartered for what they did, and that still probably wouldnt be justice)
So in effect what he has done now is actually nothing to do with her or her son. (again im saying theoreticly)
As they have "new identities" does that mean they are 2 different people? ?
Which we could probably do better if she wasn't standing at the sidelines like The Punisher's Cheerleader, egging on some pretty nasty thoughts and ideas of her own.
Agree with all three posts:)
I agree with this.
I suppose she feels that way because you can't expect her to be rational about these things. She lost her son in horrific circumstances, so I can understand why she might now feel that she deserves to know why Venables was sent back to prison. Not that that means I think she should be told.
We can be more objective, because we weren't in her position.
But sadly the tabloid media don't want an objective or rational standpoint - so they just fuel the situation by camping outside her home. Morons! :mad:
Oh yes, because she needs a PR team to make the public turn against child killers. A very difficult task she has ahead of her. No one in this country is disgusted with those two. We need her everyday on TV to remind us that child murderer are horrible, we might forget.:rolleyes:
I can totally understand her position, that's exactly she is not the one that is going to judge him.
The media also seem to want to prejudice any possible future trials that Venables may have to face but they will presumably blame the legal system for that, rather admitting it is any fault of their own making.
Exactly - this will just be a total farce. I believe strongly in freedom of the media - but not to make a travesty of the judicial system so they can sell a few more shoddy chip wrappers and add to the pain and distress of a grieving mother and her family.
If they listen to what 'the people' want maybe they would be confused by this contributor to the Mail Online:
"We should have hung them when they were ten. Killing children is wrong and should be punished by death.
- PH Leicester, 8/3/2010 9:02"
What an incredibly reasonable statement. Makes is almost sound like it was just an ufortunate apple scrumping incident.
But lets not be shy here. Lets call it what it is. And change your quote a bit. "It doesn't matter if a person has premeditatedly kidnapped, tortured and murdered a helpless toddler, all that matters is what sort of person they are now. "
Not quite so reasonable is it .....
I am sorry but I had to laugh at the irony of that quote! The ignorance of some people is breath taking!
:eek:
That has to be purposely ironic.
You can't have it both ways.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Here is another one from the same source:
Clearly Venables is insane and should have been locked away, in hindsight before he murdered James Bulger but after the murder he should never have been released. His eyes are empty, hollow and evil.
- Sheriff, Worcester, England, 8/3/2010 1:13
Precisely. It is almost as if they want to scupper a fair trial, which will ensure he gets off whether he's guilty of a new offence or not.
Oh I agree and the Sun seems to be the worst at the moment for trying to get the info. The only reason I think the Sun is doing it is to get some forgiveness on Mersyside, they want people to read the paper again. So if they can "help" Denise maybe they think that the City of Liverpool will forgive them, I dont think Liverpool will forgive the sun for a long long time.
What rot!!! How can you compare knowing basic right from wrong to understanding the intricacies of voting / house buying :eek: :eek:
Yes they were children, but does that really excuse them from taking responsibilty from what they did??? Surely if they go so far as to murder another child without understanding the consequences then they have to learn the bloody consequences??
at the age of 10 they would of had at least 5 years of education..I knew what was right and wrong, and probably did since I started talking.
Quite so - if only life was as cut and dried as that. I find it sad that some people cannot find it within them to at least try to take on board the appalling home circumstances that these boys endured.
Yes, we all know there are people who have emerged successfully from deprived homes where they did not enjoy the best of everything or where there was violence or systematic abuse. But the fact that Venables and Thomson did not surely points to something fundamentally wrong whereby they did not survive their upbringings unscathed.
If all they were exposed to was brutality, abuse, lack of care and an absence of affection, basic essentials and discipline, what did either boy have as his guidance or role model?