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.
A 'normal' 10 yr old, with a 'normal' upbringing should know.
Unfortunately, these werent normal children, they were seriously emotionally damaged and together were, as we know, a lethal combination.
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?
many children have rough lives, in disfunctional families or childrens homes where sometimes abused, but they dont all turn into baby killers.
Then you're the only person on the planet. When I was age ten, I was thought the A Team was all PEW PEW PEW EXPLOSIONS.
Get a grip on reality please.
It's pointless debating the "knew right from wrong" angle... they want them fully in control of their actions and at the same time dismissed as simply being evil.
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??
How do you establish right from wrong when you are living in a home where you are beaten black and blue. If such brutality is deemed normal by the standards you are forced to live by, it probably influences the parameters of how you perceive right and wrong.
Thomson and Venables were rightly vilified and punished for the crimes they perpetrated on a toddler. But as far as learning from consequences is concerned - I wonder if there were ever any consequences for the people who abused them. If they were allowed to get away with it, maybe the boys thought that they would too. In fact, I suspect the idea that they might be caught never even entered their heads.
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?
Yes my heart really goes out to those poor boys, I'm having friends over this evening and we're all going to sit in a circle and hold hands and remember the eight years those brave little boys spent inside that awful detention centre.
And you know what, if Jon has commited a sex attack, I just bet it was some horrible floosy in a short skirt leading him on.
many children have rough lives, in disfunctional families or childrens homes where sometimes abused, but they dont all turn into baby killers.
It is a testament to humanity that any child can survive a traumatic childhood and become a balanced adult.
Why does it surprise anyone that children that are treated worse than animals, with no love or affection and without a reasonable role model, fail to develop emotionally and become psychologically damaged.
many children have rough lives, in disfunctional families or childrens homes where sometimes abused, but they dont all turn into baby killers.
No, of course they don't - but as we can see, some do.
If all you ever experience is brutality and neglect, what do you have to use as your moral compass? It's not innate and thankfully most of us learn our morality from people who are capable of teaching us right from wrong.
I do think that she deserves to know what he did just because Jon took away her child and therefore she should be able to get any of the information that she wants to keep her happy.
How do you establish right from wrong when you are living in a home where you are beaten black and blue. If such brutality is deemed normal by the standards you are forced to live by, it probably influences the parameters of how you perceive right and wrong.
The majority of people do. That is simply no excuse. No ones childhood is perfect, people should be responsible for their mistakes. A lot of young murderers had perfectly "normal" childhoods and a most people with bad backgrounds don't become killers, some of them even excel in life. There is simply no justification. Venables is not the norm, he;s the exception.
This is real life, not a soap opera. People don't bounce back from traumas in a matter of weeks in real life.
What Denise Fergus has endured is the stuff of nightmares.
An ongoing , life long nightmare.
Indeed... it's a shame those who lose children other ways aren't encouraged to keep a life time of nightmarish hatred burning in their souls. They simply have to go through a period of mourning and get on with their lives. Clearly Denise has the better method enabled and supported by a rabid tabloid press.
Indeed... it's a shame those who lose children other ways aren't encouraged to keep a life time of nightmarish hatred burning in their souls. They simply have to go through a period of mourning and get on with their lives. Clearly Denise has the better method enabled and supported by a rabid tabloid press.
Oh Yes, because it was her that made, Venables, her child's murderer commit a crime, that would bring this case again to the spotlight. :rolleyes:
Then you're the only person on the planet. When I was age ten, I was thought the A Team was all PEW PEW PEW EXPLOSIONS.
Get a grip on reality please.
Just one question. If they didn't realise what they were doing was wrong, why did they drag James's body to the railway line and cover it in rubble? Do you think they thought they were playing hide and seek? Or do you think they were trying to cover up their crime in an attempt to escape justice?
Why try to hide something you didn't know was wrong?
Yes my heart really goes out to those poor boys, I'm having friends over this evening and we're all going to sit in a circle and hold hands and remember the eight years those brave little boys spent inside that awful detention centre.
And you know what, if Jon has commited a sex attack, I just bet it was some horrible floosy in a short skirt leading him on.
Well, actually if someone's heart had gone out to these two boys sometime before 12 February 1993, then perhaps Jamie Bulger would still be alive today and three young lives would not have been senselessly destroyed.
Those boys were failed by their families and the services whose duty it is to protect children from harm.
Well, actually if someone's heart had gone out to these two boys sometime before 12 February 1993, then perhaps Jamie Bulger would still be alive today and three young lives would not have been senselessly destroyed.
Those boys were failed by their families and the services whose duty it is to protect children from harm.
Be careful when you post such an opinion!
If they cant get hold of and hang those who killed James, they will be round to yours with a noose!
That is a reasonable and rational opinion, and as such has no place where it can be read by the hysterical masses!
Well, actually if someone's heart had gone out to these two boys sometime before 12 February 1993, then perhaps Jamie Bulger would still be alive today and three young lives would not have been senselessly destroyed.
Those boys were failed by their families and the services whose duty it is to protect children from harm.
True. But it still doesn't justify child murder. And it will never do.
They did all of this to themselfs and are still alive, Jamie does not even have a destroyed life.
The majority of people do. That is simply no excuse. No ones childhood is perfect, people should be responsible for their mistakes. A lot of young murderers had perfectly "normal" childhoods and a most people with bad backgrounds don't become killers, some of them even excel in life. There is simply no justification. Venables is not the norm, he;s the exception.
Yes - the majority of people do have a notion of right and wrong - but you learn it.
You don't need to have a perfect childhood in order to turn out well but the worse your upbringing is, the more skewed your perception of right and wrong will be.
Yes, Venables is an exception - because he turned out to become a murderer - and his exceptionally bad upbringing is an irrefutable element in why he did so.
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??
That was the point of their sentence. Rehabilitation, not punishment.
And I find it amazing that there are so many highly intelligent ten year olds around. My neighbours son nearly killed himself a few years ago (he's 13 now) because he was climbing a tree, with his bicycle helmet still on, when he slipped and got the helmet stuck in a fork in the branches. He nearly hung himself in their back garden, and if they hadn't spotted him that's where they'd have found him.
The point I'm making is that he didn't understand what all the fuss was about, claiming that the doctor would have fixed him.
Indeed... it's a shame those who lose children other ways aren't encouraged to keep a life time of nightmarish hatred burning in their souls. They simply have to go through a period of mourning and get on with their lives. Clearly Denise has the better method enabled and supported by a rabid tabloid press.
Nothing simple about it.
Must be great to be you, the rest of us as mere humans.
Comments
A 'normal' 10 yr old, with a 'normal' upbringing should know.
Unfortunately, these werent normal children, they were seriously emotionally damaged and together were, as we know, a lethal combination.
Then you're the only person on the planet. When I was age ten, I was thought the A Team was all PEW PEW PEW EXPLOSIONS.
Get a grip on reality please.
Because you were taught it by your parents, presumably.
Those without good parenting may not be so lucky.
It's pointless debating the "knew right from wrong" angle... they want them fully in control of their actions and at the same time dismissed as simply being evil.
It makes two persons on the planet. When I was ten i was perfectly conscious of what i was doing. I can even remember clearly my thought process.
How do you establish right from wrong when you are living in a home where you are beaten black and blue. If such brutality is deemed normal by the standards you are forced to live by, it probably influences the parameters of how you perceive right and wrong.
Thomson and Venables were rightly vilified and punished for the crimes they perpetrated on a toddler. But as far as learning from consequences is concerned - I wonder if there were ever any consequences for the people who abused them. If they were allowed to get away with it, maybe the boys thought that they would too. In fact, I suspect the idea that they might be caught never even entered their heads.
Yes my heart really goes out to those poor boys, I'm having friends over this evening and we're all going to sit in a circle and hold hands and remember the eight years those brave little boys spent inside that awful detention centre.
And you know what, if Jon has commited a sex attack, I just bet it was some horrible floosy in a short skirt leading him on.
On the question of if she has the right, no, none of us do in this case till its reached its natural conclusion, and when it does we should all know.
It is a testament to humanity that any child can survive a traumatic childhood and become a balanced adult.
Why does it surprise anyone that children that are treated worse than animals, with no love or affection and without a reasonable role model, fail to develop emotionally and become psychologically damaged.
No, of course they don't - but as we can see, some do.
If all you ever experience is brutality and neglect, what do you have to use as your moral compass? It's not innate and thankfully most of us learn our morality from people who are capable of teaching us right from wrong.
Someone needs to.;)
The majority of people do. That is simply no excuse. No ones childhood is perfect, people should be responsible for their mistakes. A lot of young murderers had perfectly "normal" childhoods and a most people with bad backgrounds don't become killers, some of them even excel in life. There is simply no justification. Venables is not the norm, he;s the exception.
Indeed... it's a shame those who lose children other ways aren't encouraged to keep a life time of nightmarish hatred burning in their souls. They simply have to go through a period of mourning and get on with their lives. Clearly Denise has the better method enabled and supported by a rabid tabloid press.
Oh Yes, because it was her that made, Venables, her child's murderer commit a crime, that would bring this case again to the spotlight. :rolleyes:
Just one question. If they didn't realise what they were doing was wrong, why did they drag James's body to the railway line and cover it in rubble? Do you think they thought they were playing hide and seek? Or do you think they were trying to cover up their crime in an attempt to escape justice?
Why try to hide something you didn't know was wrong?
Well, actually if someone's heart had gone out to these two boys sometime before 12 February 1993, then perhaps Jamie Bulger would still be alive today and three young lives would not have been senselessly destroyed.
Those boys were failed by their families and the services whose duty it is to protect children from harm.
Be careful when you post such an opinion!
If they cant get hold of and hang those who killed James, they will be round to yours with a noose!
That is a reasonable and rational opinion, and as such has no place where it can be read by the hysterical masses!
True. But it still doesn't justify child murder. And it will never do.
They did all of this to themselfs and are still alive, Jamie does not even have a destroyed life.
Yes - the majority of people do have a notion of right and wrong - but you learn it.
You don't need to have a perfect childhood in order to turn out well but the worse your upbringing is, the more skewed your perception of right and wrong will be.
Yes, Venables is an exception - because he turned out to become a murderer - and his exceptionally bad upbringing is an irrefutable element in why he did so.
That was the point of their sentence. Rehabilitation, not punishment.
And I find it amazing that there are so many highly intelligent ten year olds around. My neighbours son nearly killed himself a few years ago (he's 13 now) because he was climbing a tree, with his bicycle helmet still on, when he slipped and got the helmet stuck in a fork in the branches. He nearly hung himself in their back garden, and if they hadn't spotted him that's where they'd have found him.
The point I'm making is that he didn't understand what all the fuss was about, claiming that the doctor would have fixed him.
Agreed, and society has also been failed by allowing Venables back into society.
Nothing simple about it.
Must be great to be you, the rest of us as mere humans.