[parthy]

Originally Posted by downtonfan

Yeah, I said it.

You're such a badass renegade.

I'm wet.

[Creamtea]

Originally Posted by be more pacific

What irrational kneejerkery! Only a true f***wit would assume the families of criminals are automatically complicit and therefore unworthy of support.

Pretty much what I was going to say. But you can always rely on the flaming pitchfork wielding morons of society.

[Vodka_Drinka]

Ridiculous. She can donate her money to whoever she bloody well likes! The families are innocent and have done no wrong. Not surprised that the Bulger/Fergus family have stuck their oar in either, its nothing to do with them either.

[DavetheScot]

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.

But sometimes people really are exhibiting lack of intelligence. This case is an example; prisoners families are not themselves guilty of any crime and suffer as a consequence of actions they didn't commit. Anyone who can't see this is being singularly obtuse.

Interestingly, not all right-wing people do take the same view on this. I have no love for the Daily Mail, but they've done a far more balanced piece on this story than the Sun; they mention the hostile tweets, but also mention the supportive ones and clarify that these greatly outnumber the hostile tweets. Their comments section is also mainly supportive of the donation.

[JasonWatkins]

According to that bastion of truth and integrity, The Sun, she used to volunteer to visit prisoners with no family or friends a decade ago, so it would certainly give an explanation as to her choice of charity if she has first hand experience of what goes on.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...prisoners.html

But then, as is typical, The Sun are trying to stir up "fury" where there is none.

[be more pacific]

Originally Posted by JasonWatkins

According to that bastion of truth and integrity, The Sun, she used to volunteer to visit prisoners with no family or friends a decade ago, so it would certainly give an explanation as to her choice of charity if she has first hand experience of what goes on.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...prisoners.html

But then, as is typical, The Sun are trying to stir up "fury" where there is none.

The headline "Catherine Tyldesley spent time in jail" is so misleading that I wonder if it's actually libelous?

Perhaps the defenders of truth and justice at the Sun should hack Catherine's phone, just to be on the safe side?

[JasonWatkins]

Originally Posted by be more pacific

The headline "Catherine Tyldesley spent time in jail" is so misleading that I wonder if it's actually libelous?

Perhaps the defenders of truth and justice at the Sun should hack Catherine's phone, just to be on the safe side?

You may well be right about libel actually, or defamation at least. A cursory look at Wiki gives this, and I would have thought the BiB could apply.

English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them. Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest).

[Missy Marsh]

Instead of being mortified, why don't these idiots give whatever they can to charities that they feel are worthwhile and just get over it.

[Pencil]

I would rather hear about money being donated to victims' families, not the criminals', so I can understand why people are annoyed.

[be more pacific]

Originally Posted by Pencil

I would rather hear about money being donated to victims' families, not the criminals', so I can understand why people are annoyed.

But money is donated to charities for victims' families by other people. However, the families of criminals are often the silent victims who receive very little support.

[katmobile]

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.

It's wrong to tar all criminals and all their families with the same brush - even amongst the most despictable crimes there are differing reasons why people do it and different characters types - for example a lot of child abusers were themselves abused as children - someone on the radio once said that rapists consisted either of the arrogant or the mental disturbed. Some criminal's families probably were in some way to blame for them becoming criminals - some probably aren't - a friend of mine ended up confronting the family of a lad who was chucking rocks at him and his then very young son - and encountered a nice lady who didn't know how to cope with her son's reckless behaviour - the friend was greated with a despairing "what has he (meaning her son) done now?" - it turned out his bad behaviour had been going on for years and she'd moved out of London in an attempt to curb it. There are also shades of criminality - housebreaking is not child murder - would I give money to a charity that helps the families of those who have stolen off me over the years (I've had stuff nicked from various places I've lived, from various cars I've owned and from my tent at Glastonbury) - yes I probably would.

Being wary isn't the same as outright condemnations and blanket judgement - without knowing the circumstances you can't judge.

[The Lost Boy]

People really think wives/girfriends of scum are victims. Really! You are so out of touch you're on the moon. They know what their other halves are up to & they know the bloody risks.

Yes it's a charity & yes, she can give it to who she likes. Dosen't make it right though.

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by The Lost Boy

People really think wives/girfriends of scum are victims. Really! You are so out of touch you're on the moon. They know what their other halves are up to & they know the bloody risks.

Yes it's a charity & yes, she can give it to who she likes. Dosen't make it right though.

Oh for pete's sake. Yes, of course *some* family members are complicit in what their criminal other halves do, but why assume that's the norm and applies across the board? Why condemn everyone with a family member in prison with that ridiculously narrow and biased brushstroke?

[momma11]

Originally Posted by lexi22

Oh for pete's sake. Yes, of course *some* family members are complicit in what their criminal other halves do, but why assume that's the norm and applies across the board? Why condemn everyone with a family member in prison with that ridiculously narrow and biased brushstroke?

^ This ^

There are all types of people in prison , for all sorts of different crimes.
I have a neighbour whose son was sent to prison , the family had been harassed on almost a daily basis by a gang of local youths , one day he completely lost it and attacked the boys with a metal pole , seriously injuring one young lad.
He rightly spent a few years in jail , it could have been worse , but due to the provocation , his sentence was less than it could have been.
His family suffered though ,his children were targeted at school , nasty comments shouted after his wife and his parents , basically life was made difficult for his whole family.
Did he deserve to go to jail , yes , his reaction was way over the top.
Did his family deserve to be punished with him , no , none of that was their doing.
Not everyone in prison is a Mafia Don type , crimes much the same as criminals vary.
Sometimes the family left behind are victims too.

[The Lost Boy]

Originally Posted by lexi22

Oh for pete's sake. Yes, of course *some* family members are complicit in what their criminal other halves do, but why assume that's the norm and applies across the board? Why condemn everyone with a family member in prison with that ridiculously narrow and biased brushstroke?

Who's Pete?

Where did i say they are complicit? Knowing is not complicit, is it.

Anyway. Having thought a bit more. I do agree that there are some situations where the spouse will suffer hardship, like if her pedophile husband gets locked up. And she'll struggle without his premier league wages

But if you're talking Wayne & Waynetta and Waynes doing 15 for burgling my house. You think Waynetta deserves charity? I don't, because she knew dam well what would happen if Wayne got caught.

[be more pacific]

Originally Posted by The Lost Boy

Who's Pete?

Where did i say they are complicit? Knowing is not complicit, is it.

Anyway. Having thought a bit more. I do agree that there are some situations where the spouse will suffer hardship, like if her pedophile husband gets locked up. And she'll struggle without his premier league wages

But if you're talking Wayne & Waynetta and Waynes doing 15 for burgling my house. You think Waynetta deserves charity? I don't, because she knew dam well what would happen if Wayne got caught.

Yes, knowing does mean complicit if the person who knows fails to report the crime. Are you suggesting that the people who receive support from Out There are themselves criminals because you 'reckon' they have conspired to conceal (including through silence) the crimes committed by their relatives?

[The Lost Boy]

Originally Posted by be more pacific

Yes, knowing does mean complicit if the person who knows fails to report the crime. Are you suggesting that the people who receive support from Out There are themselves criminals because you 'reckon' they have conspired to conceal (including through silence) the crimes committed by their relatives?

You're saying they're not?

[be more pacific]

Originally Posted by The Lost Boy

You're saying they're not?

The law says they're not. You're talking about people who have not personally been convicted for any part in their relatives' crimes.

What you may imagine they have done is irrelevant when there's no actual evidence.

[Hit Em Up Style]

Why are the Bulger's even involved in this? so what if it is 20 years since James was killed. Surley its ITV who put this programme out on the anniversary not Catherine making her choice to coinside with it. We all know how awful that was and the pain they must feel is unthinkable but that has nothing to do with Catherine so they shouldn't have even invited themselves into this debate.

Who Catherine gives money to and which chairties she supports has nothing to do with anyone but her. I actually admire her so much for having the guts to do this.

[momma11]

Originally Posted by Hit Em Up Style

Why are the Bulger's even involved in this? so what if it is 20 years since James was killed. Surley its ITV who put this programme out on the anniversary not Catherine making her choice to coinside with it. We all know how awful that was and the pain they must feel is unthinkable but that has nothing to do with Catherine so they shouldn't have even invited themselves into this debate.

Who Catherine gives money to and which chairties she supports has nothing to do with anyone but her. I actually admire her so much for having the guts to do this.

Hear Hear !

[wise-up]

Originally Posted by The Lost Boy

People really think wives/girfriends of scum are victims. Really! You are so out of touch you're on the moon. They know what their other halves are up to & they know the bloody risks.

Yes it's a charity & yes, she can give it to who she likes. Dosen't make it right though.

What about the criminals children who are probably too young to understand what their parent did? why should they not get help?

[lexi22]

Originally Posted by The Lost Boy

Who's Pete?

Where did i say they are complicit? Knowing is not complicit, is it.

Anyway. Having thought a bit more. I do agree that there are some situations where the spouse will suffer hardship, like if her pedophile husband gets locked up. And she'll struggle without his premier league wages

But if you're talking Wayne & Waynetta and Waynes doing 15 for burgling my house. You think Waynetta deserves charity? I don't, because she knew dam well what would happen if Wayne got caught.

I expect all the criminals wear stripey jumpers, a mask and have a bag marked 'swag' over their shoulders in your tragically limited little world.

[be more pacific]

Still no evidence that anyone on this thread thinks it's wrong to be wary of criminals? Still no evidence that Out There has supported people who were complicit in their relatives' crimes?

It's funny how the "moral" types seem unable to support their ridiculous claims with cold, hard evidence. Maybe evidence is a "liberal" concept?

[tiggerpooh]

Originally Posted by downtonfan

There is a charity for prisoner's wives? Whatever next. Most of them will be dole scum anyway. Yeah, I said it.

Just look at the BBC1 comedy Birds of a Feather. After Tracey and Sharon's husbands were sent down for armed robbery, Sharon got a job in a supermarket, most of the time being behind the Deli counter, selling cheese and other products. Less than a year later, she was sacked. She had to go on the dole, but did manage to get into work about three years later. She became self employed, and opened her own cafe.

As for Tracey, if I remember, the money her and Darryl had, gradually ran out as the episodes went on. I remember in one episode, in the second series I believe, Tracey went to a cash dispensing machine to get some money and the machine rejected her card, saying it was empty.

So yeah, prisoners wives can easily get into situations that mean they have to start claiming benefits. They haven't got their husbands who can go out to work for them.

It's very different nowadays, to what it was like back in the 1950s and 1960s. Back then, the wife normally stayed at home, cleaning and cooking, plus looking after the kids, while the husband went to work, somewhere.

Nowadays, because of the state of things, with us being in a double-dip recession, both the wife and husband have to work, just to get enough money in to live a decent life. It's not right that both have to work, but at the moment, most couples have to.

I blame Gordon Brown when he was PM for this mess. I hold him soley responsible for the recession that started in 2008. It's still going on and it looks like it's going to get worse. They were saying on the news just before Christmas, that by the end of 2013, we could be in a triple-dip recession.

I thought back in the Summer, we were gradually starting to get out of this finacial mess, but it seems to have wavered back again.

God, Gordon Brown. The man should never have been PM in the first place. I've heard other people say the same thing over the last three years or so.

I know most people will think that I've babbled on a bit much, but I think I have made my point fairly and squarely.

[tiggerpooh]

Originally Posted by momma11

^ This ^

There are all types of people in prison , for all sorts of different crimes.
I have a neighbour whose son was sent to prison , the family had been harassed on almost a daily basis by a gang of local youths , one day he completely lost it and attacked the boys with a metal pole , seriously injuring one young lad.
He rightly spent a few years in jail , it could have been worse , but due to the provocation , his sentence was less than it could have been.
His family suffered though ,his children were targeted at school , nasty comments shouted after his wife and his parents , basically life was made difficult for his whole family.
Did he deserve to go to jail , yes , his reaction was way over the top.
Did his family deserve to be punished with him , no , none of that was their doing.
Not everyone in prison is a Mafia Don type , crimes much the same as criminals vary.
Sometimes the family left behind are victims too.

This reminds me of the Channel 4 TV programme Shameless, about people living on a scummy, run down council estate in Manchester, claiming benefits for years on end and using the money to have sex and buy lots of booze to get drunk all the time.

Also, it reminds me a bit of the movie This Is England, about a group of teenagers from run-down council estates, trying to have the time of their lives during the Summer of 1983. Before they have to go back to school.