[Becki_Stafford]

Is there such a thing as a 'wrong' charity? Surely they would not allow a charity for say serial killers? I dont know, what you all think?

[Freeman000]

Urgh. What a morally repugnant response from those who have criticised her chosen charity. To say that the family members of prisoners are less deserving of charity than other people is to automatically lay some of the responsibility of the criminals onto their families, which is disgusting.

Good for Catherine for standing by her decision in the face of the mob.

[Skyclaw726]

This is seriously a issue? people are getting outraged over this? Ok if you are seriously getting outraged at this then you really need to book yourself into a mental ward and have your tubes tied and balls snipped off to prevent breeding so the next generation doesn't have to bear the fruits of your ignorance and stupidity.

[Scarlett O Hara]

Originally Posted by Freeman000

the face of the mob.

Why is anyone who questions her choice automatically part of a mob?

Yet again those claiming to have the most open minds are showing otherwise in other ways. Hmm.

[Scarlett O Hara]

Originally Posted by Skyclaw726

people are getting outraged over this?.

Disagreeing with something doesn't mean you are outraged.

But that seems to be a word people like to use across these forums to try and stifle any kind of debate, so I am not surprised to see it being used in this thread

I find it fascinating how the worst insults are coming from those who support this lady's choice of charity though.

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by Scarlett O Hara

I don't think that's fair. I think recoiling from criminals is a much more natural reaction than the woolly liberal one.

Also, I consider myself pretty left leaning in politics but one thing I hate about the left is how some try and act like those who don't agree are below their own intelligence or are not wordly enough to understand where the more liberal view might stem from. It's the sort of attitude that makes people retreat further into any right-wing views they might have rather than getting them to see whatever light you want them to see.

Why is is so difficult to see that families of prisoners need support? Why should having a family member in prison automatically exclude them from any compassion, as if they somehow hold some responsibility for the actions of that family member? For the most part, I'd suggest they don't, so why should they be treated as if they share the guilt of the guilty party?

And having a generic view of 'criminals' - as if they're all the same and come with the same backgrounds, histories and mindsets - is not helpful. People end up in prison for all sorts of reasons, not all because they're scum or rotten to the core.

[Freeman000]

Originally Posted by Scarlett O Hara

Why is anyone who questions her choice automatically part of a mob?

Yet again those claiming to have the most open minds are showing otherwise in other ways. Hmm.

I have no problem with people putting forward a reasoned critique of her chosen charity (although I find it hard to imagine that there is one), but when people are branding her choice 'tasteless' on Twitter by evoking the James Bulger case, then yes, I will refer to them as a mob. Or maybe a rabble sounds better?

[Freeman000]

And on Jade Conway, the outraged Tweeter referenced in the article....take a look at the double standard. Catherine is 'tasteless' for making this charitable gesture on the anniversary of James Bulger's death, according to Jade...tasteless. However, days before, our friend Jade re-tweeted a joke by Frankie Boyle about the death of Oscar Pistorious's girlfriend.

https://twitter.com/jadeconway

So, Jade, why don't you tell us something more about 'taste' in the face of death.

[sofieellis]

Poor girl, she does something useful, to help others, who are in an unfortunate position, and she gets slated for it!

If the charity had been offering a reward scheme for criminals, I could understand the uproar. But it's not, it's helping people who are, themselves, suffering in some way, because of of crime. People then to forget that there are usually more victims than the obvious ones, when a crime occurs.

[Scarlett O Hara]

Originally Posted by lexi22

And having a generic view of 'criminals' - as if they're all the same and come with the same backgrounds, histories and mindsets - is not helpful. People end up in prison for all sorts of reasons, not all because they're scum or rotten to the core.

I didn't say that. Recoiling from criminals isn't the same as having a generic view, but I do believe it is a natural reaction. Whether it's right or wrong, I don't know. But I do believe we have the right to try and protect ourselves by going with our gut.

[Scarlett O Hara]

Originally Posted by Freeman000

I have no problem with people putting forward a reasoned critique of her chosen charity (although I find it hard to imagine that there is one), but when people are branding her choice 'tasteless' on Twitter by evoking the James Bulger case, then yes, I will refer to them as a mob.

I agree that's fair enough and anyone trying to link this to James Bulger to provoke attack on the woman donating is disgusting.

Some of the comments in this thread really are making me wonder if I'm from Mars or something though. Still, par for the course on the internet...

[sofieellis]

Originally Posted by Scarlett O Hara

I didn't say that. Recoiling from criminals isn't the same as having a generic view, but I do believe it is a natural reaction. Whether it's right or wrong, I don't know. But I do believe we have the right to try and protect ourselves by going with our gut.

I can understand recoiling from the criminal, but I don't understand recoiling from the criminal's family.

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by Scarlett O Hara

I didn't say that. Recoiling from criminals isn't the same as having a generic view, but I do believe it is a natural reaction. Whether it's right or wrong, I don't know. But I do believe we have the right to try and protect ourselves by going with our gut.

I'm sorry, what do you mean by this? Protect ourselves from what? And what has it to do with offering support to those who find themselves, through no fault of their own, forced into a world they have no experience of?

[DiamondDoll]

Originally Posted by LiverpoolFCGirl

I agree, how ridiculous. She won the money and she's donated it to charity.

Who are we to condemn what charity she chooses? It doesn't sit well with me that they're bringing James into matters either. If she was donating to the prisoners themselves I could easily understand the criticism, but that's not the case is it?

I'm with you there.

[Scarlett O Hara]

Originally Posted by lexi22

I'm sorry, what do you mean by this? Protect ourselves from what? And what has it to do with offering support to those who find themselves, through no fault of their own, forced into a world they have no experience of?

From what I'm reading, people in this thread seem to think it wrong to be wary of criminals in general. I find that bizarre. But maybe I'm misreading.

[Scarlett O Hara]

Originally Posted by sofieellis

I don't understand recoiling from the criminal's family.

I was wrong there, that's true.

I just don't like the way those who did a double take at her choice of charity are being "shouted" at like naughty/stupid kids.

[be more pacific]

Originally Posted by Scarlett O Hara

I didn't say that. Recoiling from criminals isn't the same as having a generic view, but I do believe it is a natural reaction. Whether it's right or wrong, I don't know. But I do believe we have the right to try and protect ourselves by going with our gut.

What has that got to do with the innocent families who are often the silent victims? Do we need to "protect ourselves" from normal citizens, simply because they're related to criminals?

Originally Posted by Scarlett O Hara

From what I'm reading, people in this thread seem to think it wrong to be wary of criminals in general. I find that bizarre. But maybe I'm misreading.

In which case, please quote the specific posts in which such comments were made.

I have seen nothing like that (nor anything that seems vaguely like that) on this thread.

Originally Posted by Scarlett O Hara

I was wrong there, that's true.

I just don't like the way those who did a double take at her choice of charity are being "shouted" at like naughty/stupid kids.

Please find me any intelligent and rational objections to Catherine's choice of charity. Anyone who assumes the relatives of criminals must be "dole scum" deserves to be treated like a child.

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by Scarlett O Hara

From what I'm reading, people in this thread seem to think it wrong to be wary of criminals in general. I find that bizarre. But maybe I'm misreading.

No maybe about it.

[decobelle]

Originally Posted by AdelaideGirl

What they went through was unbelievably terrible and wish the media would leave them alone. Asking them for quotes about crimes is exploitative and just re-opens their pain.

He could have said 'no comment'

[Scarlett O Hara]

This thread is too heated for me. Why people can't disagree in a civil manner I'll never know.

[be more pacific]

Originally Posted by Scarlett O Hara

This thread is too heated for me. Why people can't disagree in a civil manner I'll never know.

Disagreement is fine. However, if you claim that certain things have been said (or even hinted at) in other people's posts, it is only civil to cite the specific posts and allow the authors to clarify exactly what they meant.

You have chosen to instead make bold claims about how "people in this thread seem to think it wrong to be wary of criminals in general" without any evidence that anyone believes any such thing.

[johartuk]

There seems to be an odd notion amongst some posting on this thread that this charity hands out money to prisoners' families. Why would it? Most charities use donated money to supply services (e.g. helplines, facilities, research) or items (e.g. food, clothing, medical equipment) to those in need. There is no reason to suggest this charity is any different. It's just a shame that the Sun went with its usual rabble-rousing nonsense instead of actually bothering to find out what the charity actually does before kicking off.

[Jerrica09]

Originally Posted by j4Rose

Among those horrified after the ITV1 game show was the husband of James Bulger’s mum Denise Fergus, 45.

Stuart Fergus, 37, condemned the donation as “ill advised”. Speaking just days after the 20th anniversary of two-year-old James’s appalling murder, he insisted: “There are so many more deserving charities. What about the victims’ families?”


Are they becoming rentagobs now? Absolutely nothing to do with them.

Tell that to the *journalists* who pester them for quotes whenever something comes up and allows for a tenuous link to James Bulger.

I don't understand why a certain section of people have appointed themselves the Official Charity Donations Police? She won the money, she can choose where it goes.

[mickmars]

Originally Posted by Scarlett O Hara

I don't think that's fair. I think recoiling from criminals is a much more natural reaction than the woolly liberal one.

Also, I consider myself pretty left leaning in politics but one thing I hate about the left is how some try and act like those who don't agree are below their own intelligence or are not wordly enough to understand where the more liberal view might stem from. It's the sort of attitude that makes people retreat further into any right-wing views they might have rather than getting them to see whatever light you want them to see.

Total agreement

[j4Rose]

Originally Posted by Jerrica09

Tell that to the *journalists* who pester them for quotes whenever something comes up and allows for a tenuous link to James Bulger.

I don't understand why a certain section of people have appointed themselves the Official Charity Donations Police? She won the money, she can choose where it goes.

They could still have said nothing. I'm sure they are used to the media by now.

God, all of this fuss over absolutely nothing.