Really... Can I remind you that this is a forum about James Bulgers killers.
Mary Bell was brought into it by a previous poster not me and Hitler is long dead and gone.
I've stayed on topic but I veered off to refute your asinine comment.
Really... Can I remind you that this is a forum about James Bulgers killers.
Mary Bell was brought into it by a previous poster not me and Hitler is long dead and gone.
The parallels between the two cases are such that it is entirely valid to bring Mary Bells' case into it. No-one is suggesting that doing so was your doing anyway.
Do you then not feel that abused children are entitled to any compassion if they go on to commit crimes against other people?
Does that crime effectively eradicate the wrong done to them and wipe the slate clean for their own abuser?
I can't see what possible reason the public feel they have to know for, apart from curiosity.
So imagine a former child killer was released into the community where u live and near ur kids, and u found
out he was living near u while re-offending and ur kids could've been their next victims. Would u then feel u had to right to know?
So imagine a former child killer was released into the community where u live and near ur kids, and u found
out he was living near u while re-offending and ur kids could've been their next victims. Would u then feel u had to right to know?
That's not the same thing at all. In the case of someone out in the community, then recalled for a suspected offence against children, the parents/guardians of the victims would be kept informed at every stage.
There's no reason for the wider public to know. At the moment, he's in custody and therefore does not pose any risk to the public at all.
My mum remebers the Mary Bell case, it happened not far from where we lived. Mary Bell was sick and twisted. If I remember right she even tried to make money from her crimes a few years ago by writing a book about her crimes.
I don't care about age, if you commit such disgusting murders at any age you have forfitted any human rights you might have. A bad childhood is no excuse.
Hazard a guess you'd of turned out a but sick and twisted had your mother try to murder you a few times and your own mother let her clients force themselves on to you as a toddler to give them a blowjob.
That's not the same thing at all. In the case of someone out in the community, then recalled for a suspected offence against children, the parents/guardians of the victims would be kept informed at every stage.
There's no reason for the wider public to know. At the moment, he's in custody and therefore does not pose any risk to the public at all.
But obviously he does pose a risk. If he didn't then why put him back in prison? Why go to the trouble of someone visiting Denise Fergus and telling her what's happened and putting her through this he'll again?
But obviously he does pose a risk. If he didn't then why put him back in prison? Why go to the trouble of someone visiting Denise Fergus and telling her what's happened and putting her through this he'll again?
Because they have a duty to keep her informed of key events like that. But that doesn't mean she needs to know why he was recalled, if it doesn't relate to the original offence.
I think you'll find I said that he doesn't pose a risk to the public right now, whilst in prison. So any suggestion that we should be told to keep ourselves safe can't be supported.
But obviously he does pose a risk. If he didn't then why put him back in prison? Why go to the trouble of someone visiting Denise Fergus and telling her what's happened and putting her through this he'll again?
We don't yet know what he's done. He hasn't necessarily posed a risk to anyone. He hasn't murdered or assaulted anyone, that has been confirmed. Denise has been told that she isn't and wasn't in any danger, so why does she think she has the right to know what he did. It doesn't concern her. She is safe, thats all she needs to know. To break the conditions of his release is a serious offence for him. From the way he's been behaving, drinking, drugging and telling people who he is it sounds like the only one he poses a risk to is himself.
I found it extremely interesting and relevant. It's a long article but I'd strongly recommend giving it a read.
Interesting and good article.
But oh so obvious.
It's not that I don't get it, but what we offer to those who have done the worse things imaginable is more than we offer to those who don't, yet need the care just as much.
That's what I can't reconcile.
I don't see why those who have done so much harm get a chance when I know there are children crying out for that kind of care, yet they just suffer because they haven't taken another person's life or something nearly as bad.
The article points out over and over again the link between background and extreme behaviour. So why aren't these people out there backing up those who would be described as "right" wing who want the children out of abusive homes and would very much support the return of borstal and compulsory structured enviroments, detention instead of ASBO's?
To me it's like reading that scientists have invented the wheel but at the same time people who are reviled as being harsh, uncaring, reactionary ect. have been trying to use that same wheel all the time.
One of my favourite websites. I read that a few years ago when they first put it up. It was so much more detailed than any other account I'd ever read and I agree, quite upsetting.:(
One of my favourite websites. I read that a few years ago when they first put it up. It was so much more detailed than any other account I'd ever read and I agree, quite upsetting.:(
Yes i'm sorry i should of noted that it would be upsetting to read, the link was for another poster that was looking for more info about both the boys mental state at the time of the crime.
I'm still pissed off with her over Hollyoaks. That would've been a brilliant storyline. She's kind of hard looking too with an annoying voice and I find it hard to feel much sympathy for her.
A storyline about a child killing would be brilliant?.
Her child was murdered, and you are more bothered about a SOAP OPERA?.
Sorry, but I really think that it would do Denise far more good if she tried to move on from being the mother of the most publicised murder victim. I imagine that some people who are new to this don't see Denise as the mother of a murdered 2-year old, but as a very bitter person. Despite having loads of sympathy for her at the time, there is something about her that I don't like.
Here we go again.....
Yet another poster telling a mother of a murdered 2 yr old to MOVE ON.
And as for Denise being bitter, anyone, (if they are human that is) who's child was lured away, tortured, and left on a railway line like a bit of trash BLOODY WELL WOULD BE.
And lemonbun, I am sure Denise will really be bothered, that a poster on this thread finds "something" about her that you dont like.
you can still see the pain in Denises face.. and for anyone who perhaps thinks that you move on from your child dying, you dont.. I have a good friends whos son drowned age 7 40 years ago, and she hid herself away at his birthday a few weeks ago and didnt want to talk to anyone. this is how a child dying affects parents..
If someone torcherd and murdered my baby boy in cold blood, I would hound them to the end of days. They don't deserve new lifes, they don't deserve to rest. They deserve to live in constant fear the way that little boy was in fear as they ripped apart his little body.
Take away your feelings of the mother but imagine for one moment seeing again the face of the person who mutilated your baby all over the news, press etc. It would drive you mad. Maybe she doesn't have the right to know why he has been arrested but people shouldn't deny her the right to feel that way because you would too.:(
We as a society have become so used to perverse killings over the years we are losing a part of our ability to feel for other people.:(
Oh my god, I'm totally shocked at the response to this thread.
Jesus, no parent wants to outlive their child, especially in such horrific circumstances.
I can only guess you and other ignorant posters are not parents. :mad:
Thanks to the last 3 posters I quoted, I can leave this thread happy, knowing that not everyone is as sanctimonious and heartless as the majority of contributors.
I would go as far as to say that I hope (yes HOPE) they find themselves in a similar situation one day and get vilified for it. And as for the one who ended her post with "have to cook" or something - you will one day, dear. karma will get you.
Yeah, and it obviously worked, didnt it? :rolleyes:
Thanks to the last 3 posters I quoted, I can leave this thread happy, knowing that not everyone is as sanctimonious and heartless as the majority of contributors.
I would go as far as to say that I hope (yes HOPE) they find themselves in a similar situation one day and get vilified for it. And as for the one who ended her post with "have to cook" or something - you will one day, dear. karma will get you.
I was just reading some of the horrid, heartless things some have said on here, and I'm quite shocked some think it's easy to move on from such a terrible loss.
If I lost a 2year old in the same way I think I'd die. James' mum is brave that even years later she is still fighting for her little boy to get the justice he deserves.
But, when it does happen it's not something that can easily be brushed to the back of the mind, as it's so hard to comprehend that children could commit such horrific acts.
With such a rare occurrence, apart from the punishment and rehabilitation of the offenders, every opportunity should be made to understand the reasons for its happening.
Then maybe the knowledge gathered could help identify and help society prevent such happenings from ever occurring again.
To say that it happened because the boys were 'just evil', is far too simplistic, does not help in the treatment of such offenders and basically is just lazy! It abdicates any responsibility to the parents of such children, the children themselves and society as a whole.
Dammit, anyone knows that if you brutalise a dog, mistreat it continually, there is a good chance that it will be vicious and eventually bite back. It is never going to be a loving family pet, that can be trusted with kids and other dogs.
How much more so is that true for humans, who are so vulnerable and need care and nurture especially when young? Who need to have their emotional needs met as well as their physical ones? Anyone remember film of babies in cots rocking backward and forward due to neglect in orphanages in Ceausescu's Romania. Many of these children grew up mentally and emotionally stunted, due to lack of physical touch and attention.
If I lost a 2year old in the same way I think I'd die. James' mum is brave that even years later she is still fighting for her little boy to get the justice he deserves.
Absolutely not. Its vindictive maliciousness. She might not have liked the sentence passed on them originally, but there is no reason for her to be involved anymore. Absolutely none, she just stirs up vigilantism and hatred against someone who has the right to a fair trial like anyone else.
All that is happening now is people are still, once again, trying to get revenge for James Bulger's death. Its really got nothing to do with what he has, or hasn't done since release.
I don't think that there original time served was right either, but we can't keep wanting revenge for something they've served time for.
How sad that Jack ''Straw Man'' couldn't even get her name right in the Commons yesterday - he called her ''Mrs Ferguson''. Tells you all you need to know about the Justice Ministry's handling of this really.:(
How sad that Jack ''Straw Man'' couldn't even get her name right in the Commons yesterday - he called her ''Mrs Ferguson''. Tells you all you need to know about the Justice Ministry's handling of this really.:(
He quoted her name wrong, but everything else they've gotten completely correct.
How sad that Jack ''Straw Man'' couldn't even get her name right in the Commons yesterday - he called her ''Mrs Ferguson''. Tells you all you need to know about the Justice Ministry's handling of this really.:(
Errm... it shows he got a name wrong... what else could it say?
Comments
I've stayed on topic but I veered off to refute your asinine comment.
The parallels between the two cases are such that it is entirely valid to bring Mary Bells' case into it. No-one is suggesting that doing so was your doing anyway.
Do you then not feel that abused children are entitled to any compassion if they go on to commit crimes against other people?
Does that crime effectively eradicate the wrong done to them and wipe the slate clean for their own abuser?
So imagine a former child killer was released into the community where u live and near ur kids, and u found
out he was living near u while re-offending and ur kids could've been their next victims. Would u then feel u had to right to know?
That's not the same thing at all. In the case of someone out in the community, then recalled for a suspected offence against children, the parents/guardians of the victims would be kept informed at every stage.
There's no reason for the wider public to know. At the moment, he's in custody and therefore does not pose any risk to the public at all.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-end-of-innocence-inside-britains-child-prisons-1874053.html
I found it extremely interesting and relevant. It's a long article but I'd strongly recommend giving it a read.
Hazard a guess you'd of turned out a but sick and twisted had your mother try to murder you a few times and your own mother let her clients force themselves on to you as a toddler to give them a blowjob.
But obviously he does pose a risk. If he didn't then why put him back in prison? Why go to the trouble of someone visiting Denise Fergus and telling her what's happened and putting her through this he'll again?
Because they have a duty to keep her informed of key events like that. But that doesn't mean she needs to know why he was recalled, if it doesn't relate to the original offence.
I think you'll find I said that he doesn't pose a risk to the public right now, whilst in prison. So any suggestion that we should be told to keep ourselves safe can't be supported.
We don't yet know what he's done. He hasn't necessarily posed a risk to anyone. He hasn't murdered or assaulted anyone, that has been confirmed. Denise has been told that she isn't and wasn't in any danger, so why does she think she has the right to know what he did. It doesn't concern her. She is safe, thats all she needs to know. To break the conditions of his release is a serious offence for him. From the way he's been behaving, drinking, drugging and telling people who he is it sounds like the only one he poses a risk to is himself.
Interesting and good article.
But oh so obvious.
It's not that I don't get it, but what we offer to those who have done the worse things imaginable is more than we offer to those who don't, yet need the care just as much.
That's what I can't reconcile.
I don't see why those who have done so much harm get a chance when I know there are children crying out for that kind of care, yet they just suffer because they haven't taken another person's life or something nearly as bad.
The article points out over and over again the link between background and extreme behaviour. So why aren't these people out there backing up those who would be described as "right" wing who want the children out of abusive homes and would very much support the return of borstal and compulsory structured enviroments, detention instead of ASBO's?
To me it's like reading that scientists have invented the wheel but at the same time people who are reviled as being harsh, uncaring, reactionary ect. have been trying to use that same wheel all the time.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/young/bulger/2.html
Quite detailed and upsetting
One of my favourite websites. I read that a few years ago when they first put it up. It was so much more detailed than any other account I'd ever read and I agree, quite upsetting.:(
Yes i'm sorry i should of noted that it would be upsetting to read, the link was for another poster that was looking for more info about both the boys mental state at the time of the crime.
Some of those witnesses should be, and I hope are, totally ashamed of themselves
"Build up her profile"
Ye gods, there are some sicko's out there, if a supposed rational person comes out with such trash!.
A storyline about a child killing would be brilliant?.
Her child was murdered, and you are more bothered about a SOAP OPERA?.
Sick ******
Here we go again.....
Yet another poster telling a mother of a murdered 2 yr old to MOVE ON.
And as for Denise being bitter, anyone, (if they are human that is) who's child was lured away, tortured, and left on a railway line like a bit of trash BLOODY WELL WOULD BE.
And lemonbun, I am sure Denise will really be bothered, that a poster on this thread finds "something" about her that you dont like.
Yeah, and it obviously worked, didnt it? :rolleyes:
Thanks to the last 3 posters I quoted, I can leave this thread happy, knowing that not everyone is as sanctimonious and heartless as the majority of contributors.
I would go as far as to say that I hope (yes HOPE) they find themselves in a similar situation one day and get vilified for it. And as for the one who ended her post with "have to cook" or something - you will one day, dear. karma will get you.
I was just reading some of the horrid, heartless things some have said on here, and I'm quite shocked some think it's easy to move on from such a terrible loss.
If I lost a 2year old in the same way I think I'd die. James' mum is brave that even years later she is still fighting for her little boy to get the justice he deserves.
With such a rare occurrence, apart from the punishment and rehabilitation of the offenders, every opportunity should be made to understand the reasons for its happening.
Then maybe the knowledge gathered could help identify and help society prevent such happenings from ever occurring again.
To say that it happened because the boys were 'just evil', is far too simplistic, does not help in the treatment of such offenders and basically is just lazy! It abdicates any responsibility to the parents of such children, the children themselves and society as a whole.
Dammit, anyone knows that if you brutalise a dog, mistreat it continually, there is a good chance that it will be vicious and eventually bite back. It is never going to be a loving family pet, that can be trusted with kids and other dogs.
How much more so is that true for humans, who are so vulnerable and need care and nurture especially when young? Who need to have their emotional needs met as well as their physical ones? Anyone remember film of babies in cots rocking backward and forward due to neglect in orphanages in Ceausescu's Romania. Many of these children grew up mentally and emotionally stunted, due to lack of physical touch and attention.
Absolutely not. Its vindictive maliciousness. She might not have liked the sentence passed on them originally, but there is no reason for her to be involved anymore. Absolutely none, she just stirs up vigilantism and hatred against someone who has the right to a fair trial like anyone else.
All that is happening now is people are still, once again, trying to get revenge for James Bulger's death. Its really got nothing to do with what he has, or hasn't done since release.
I don't think that there original time served was right either, but we can't keep wanting revenge for something they've served time for.
He quoted her name wrong, but everything else they've gotten completely correct.
Errm... it shows he got a name wrong... what else could it say?