fleetwood Blue Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 Oh and I think I should clarify the homes Venebles and Thompson were bought up in may well be very unpleasant places (I'm not sure about the facts there) but a secure unit for children isn't the worse place in the world and whilst there isn't any love they often have more of the material possessions than quite a lot of families can afford- hence why quite a few young offenders reoffend as prision is a nicer place. (In fact the same could be said of adults too). Please tell me where it would be worse for a child than a secure unit, is Newton Aycliffe kids prison still running? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 Please tell me where it would be worse for a child than a secure unit, is Newton Aycliffe kids prison still running? I'm sure it's no fun in any of them. But it was still obviously better for Venables and Thompson to be there than wherever they were brought up. Where are their mothers and fathers and so-called carers in all this? If I want anyone's anonymity breached, its theirs. They are bang at the centre of this conspiracy, and they seem to have disappeared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Becketts Anchor Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 How is it that because a child was murdered by other children the perpetrators are automatically evil satan incarnate. They were 10 FFS- they were below the age of criminal responsability in this country, if they had committed armed robbery would they have served time- no. But because they killed someone, yes they were charged with murder but I'm not so sure it wasn't manslaughter, they are evil so and sos- do me a favour. Shipman was evil, Hindley and Brady were evil, Huntly is evil (his girlfriend still has her new identity and she is far more evil than two 10 year olds) Venebles and Thompson were two 10 year old boys who may have simply made the wrong decision after a prank gone wrong, unless you were on the jury how are you to know. Jaime Bulger died as a result of many things but do you think 2 10 year old boys would have been able to take him away if his Mum had been doing her job. Yes you can loose sight of your child for a spilt second but it was a lot longer than that. 2 year olds struggle to walk very far, (most 2 year olds find running difficult) but these 2 10 year old boys managed to travel with a 2 year old over uneven ground for a couple of miles- having left a shopping centre as well. That strikes me as very odd. Your posts are often hard to read at the best of times (hopefully you don't write your medical reports without punctuation). Where to start? Well, PRANK? Come on. I'd dread to be a patient at the business end of such a 'prank' if I'm wheeled into A&E. Especially if the doctor considered such a sustained assault a 'prank'. I'm not a parent, but how many of you who are parents would let your 10 year old roam Spindles on a Saturday afternoon, I know I wouldn't. I know my comments will be upsetting but if a 2 year old escaped from his mother whilst she was shopping and managed to harm themselves fatally in that time what would you think of the mother? Because someone else did the harming the mother gets absolved of all the blame- not for me, unfortunately Jaime's Mum has to live her life with the guilt. It's clear that you're not a parent (neither am I). But that comment is truly repulsive. I happen to believe that I shouldn't be burgled if I accidently left my door unlocked. Would that make the burglary my fault? Or would the burglar be to blame? I think you're JUST A TAD HARSH to think that the mother should take the blame for losing sight of her toddler for a period of time. Who hasn't had that happen, as a parent or a child? Do you think the mother doesn't suffer every day for her lapse? I seriously wonder if you are fit to serve as a doctor with those views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 (edited) I seriously wonder if you are fit to serve as a doctor with those views. Its a decent debate this one and its very emotive... Lets not ruin it by getting personal and calling into question peoples professions etc.. Edited March 6, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 How is it that because a child was murdered by other children the perpetrators are automatically evil satan incarnate. They were 10 FFS- they were below the age of criminal responsability in this country, if they had committed armed robbery would they have served time- no. But because they killed someone, yes they were charged with murder but I'm not so sure it wasn't manslaughter, they are evil so and sos- do me a favour. Shipman was evil, Hindley and Brady were evil, Huntly is evil (his girlfriend still has her new identity and she is far more evil than two 10 year olds) Venebles and Thompson were two 10 year old boys who may have simply made the wrong decision after a prank gone wrong, unless you were on the jury how are you to know. Jaime Bulger died as a result of many things but do you think 2 10 year old boys would have been able to take him away if his Mum had been doing her job. Yes you can loose sight of your child for a spilt second but it was a lot longer than that. 2 year olds struggle to walk very far, (most 2 year olds find running difficult) but these 2 10 year old boys managed to travel with a 2 year old over uneven ground for a couple of miles- having left a shopping centre as well. That strikes me as very odd. I'm not a parent, but how many of you who are parents would let your 10 year old roam Spindles on a Saturday afternoon, I know I wouldn't. I know my comments will be upsetting but if a 2 year old escaped from his mother whilst she was shopping and managed to harm themselves fatally in that time what would you think of the mother? Because someone else did the harming the mother gets absolved of all the blame- not for me, unfortunately Jaime's Mum has to live her life with the guilt. Oh and I think I should clarify the homes Venebles and Thompson were bought up in may well be very unpleasant places (I'm not sure about the facts there) but a secure unit for children isn't the worse place in the world and whilst there isn't any love they often have more of the material possessions than quite a lot of families can afford- hence why quite a few young offenders reoffend as prision is a nicer place. (In fact the same could be said of adults too). My youngest lad (who is two) is like a bloody greyhound, I'm not sure where you get your facts from - ergo I don't know where to begin with the remainder of the comment, perhaps somewhere near the end is best for all concerned... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 How is it that because a child was murdered by other children the perpetrators are automatically evil satan incarnate. They were 10 FFS- they were below the age of criminal responsability in this country, if they had committed armed robbery would they have served time- no. But because they killed someone, yes they were charged with murder but I'm not so sure it wasn't manslaughter, they are evil so and sos- do me a favour. Shipman was evil, Hindley and Brady were evil, Huntly is evil (his girlfriend still has her new identity and she is far more evil than two 10 year olds) Venebles and Thompson were two 10 year old boys who may have simply made the wrong decision after a prank gone wrong, unless you were on the jury how are you to know. Jaime Bulger died as a result of many things but do you think 2 10 year old boys would have been able to take him away if his Mum had been doing her job. Yes you can loose sight of your child for a spilt second but it was a lot longer than that. 2 year olds struggle to walk very far, (most 2 year olds find running difficult) but these 2 10 year old boys managed to travel with a 2 year old over uneven ground for a couple of miles- having left a shopping centre as well. That strikes me as very odd. I'm not a parent, but how many of you who are parents would let your 10 year old roam Spindles on a Saturday afternoon, I know I wouldn't. I know my comments will be upsetting but if a 2 year old escaped from his mother whilst she was shopping and managed to harm themselves fatally in that time what would you think of the mother? Because someone else did the harming the mother gets absolved of all the blame- not for me, unfortunately Jaime's Mum has to live her life with the guilt. Oh and I think I should clarify the homes Venebles and Thompson were bought up in may well be very unpleasant places (I'm not sure about the facts there) but a secure unit for children isn't the worse place in the world and whilst there isn't any love they often have more of the material possessions than quite a lot of families can afford- hence why quite a few young offenders reoffend as prision is a nicer place. (In fact the same could be said of adults too). It's not personal or anything but that bit in bold there makes you a heartless bastard and then some. She wasn't to blame. Only a goon would think she was. In my experience, two-year-olds are expert escapologists. Besides, in those days, they were generally given a certain amount of leeway. There's no point saying what you would or wouldn't do now. A week after James Bulger was killed, every two-year-old in the country got tied down in the pram or with reins, and they still are. Here's my diagnosis. Doctor, you're looking a bit sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Becketts Anchor Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 Its a decent debate this one and its very emotive... Lets not ruin it by getting personal and calling into question peoples professions etc.. I stand by it. Perhaps it will be sorted when the training is finished. By God, I hope so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosa Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 We really are messed up society aren't we... we produce two ten year olds who want to murder and torture and do so... we have grown adults who then verbally assult, attempt to lynch the two kids we then put the kids through our legal / care system which results in at least one of the two still not realising ther wrongs of their actions and keeping there noses clean we still have grown adult men wanting to lynch people for what they did when they where 10 years old We really are such a violent society... Even the "good upstanding" ones represented in this thread... And we wonder how / why we produce two kids capable of doing such things... I think anybody who actually took the time to look into the upbringing of the two "evil" ones they might just realise that they where victims as well. As unpopular as that is... But then again its easier to hate than try to learn... What a messed up world we live in... Well said. What they did was horrific,but just dismissing it as 'evil' doesn't achieve anything, or stop something similar happening in the future. Something clearly went very wrong in their lives for them to even imagine doing something like that. Apparently they both put on a stone in weight in the first few weeks in custody, just from being fed regularly.It was widely reported during the court case that they were influenced by the horror film Child's Play, which their parents let them watch. Obviously plenty of kids come from deprived backgrounds and don't commit crimes like this, but they were clearly seriously damaged and disturbed children, and dismissing them as having been born evil is over-simplifying what happened. Having said that, people calling Venables and Thompson 'evil' is a lot more understandable than describing letting go of your kid's hand for a few seconds while you pay for your shopping as 'criminal neglect'. FFS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 when the training is finished I have ultimate faith in the system to weed out such attitudes and/or people. Nothing personal like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Ronnie Moore Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 but I'm not so sure it wasn't manslaughter They battered the kid with bricks, stones and an iron bar, profusely. They shoved batteries in his mouth and then attempted to cover up the attack by putting his body on a rail way line......now which part of that could even suggest manslaughter? The argument of their age is completely fruitless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Ronnie Moore Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 (edited) As for whether they should be ever let out....I couldn't answer, I don't know the lads and I don't know if they've changed, if they're remorseful, if they're a threat to society. Based on the cruelty of what they did I'm sure everyone would want to burn them alive, and with good reason too. The justice system isn't irrational though, we don't sentence people based on revenge or personal vendettas. For their own safety though, no one better find out who they are. Edited March 6, 2010 by Bring Back Ronnie Moore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 They passed that mark when they had their 10th birthdays. The age in Scotland is, I believe, 8. I'm sure she does live with the guilt. My detail here may not be spot on, but I believe she let go of his hand for a few seconds to reach for her purse to pay the butcher. Some little twats took the kid in this tiny timeframe and tortured him to death. How much eager walking do you think he did between the beatings? Please elaborate on what you find "odd" because I am intrigued as to what you may be hinting at. Sorry, I think your perspective on this one is way off. One hell of a misjudgement there then. Served his time for his "prank gone wrong" ... given a second chance and made a further misjudgement knowing full well what the outcome could be. If he's still stupid enough to keep misjudging the situation so badly perhaps society does still need protecting from him. Well we can agree on that. Or a Friday in the Strand in Bootle when they should be at school. Warning This reply is so long I was logged out before I could post it and most of it doesn't concern opinions post but the first bit does and I'm not good enough with this site to quote each relevent bit So i was wrong for saying the age of criminal responsibilty was older than 10 I was going off what someone said on question time. Its a sad fact of life that it only takes seconds for little kids to die in accidents. Having looked it up on Wiki- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger The thing I found odd was about how long it must have took Venebles and Thompson to take Bulger to where they killed him, I know someone spotted them in that time but they wrongly believed him to be a younger brother or something. Having looked it up it seems some adults were duped by the excuse they were taking him to a police station- they have to have some responsability. If he escaped from his Mum for a couple of seconds (not necessarily the case according to the info I looked up) how long do you think she gave it before asking someone at the shopping centre when he hadn't returned, the cops should realistically have been looking for him BEFORE he was killed, that is what seems odd to me. One of the things I find quite interesting is the fact the the European Court of Human rights (perhaps the highest court in the land) said that their trial was unfair, as they were tried as adults, people have gotten away with crimes for having unfair trials before (its not right but its a very-long standing law) and maybe rather than face the embarrassment of having to re-try them (or releasing them) something else was done. To answer some of the other (slightly personal) posts. 1.) My english is better than quite a few doctors actually, and medical reports are written in note form. Use of English isn't one of my strong points I'll admit but its not in text speak is it? 2.) I think I'm having difficulty explaining myself properly tonight. If Jaime Bulger had died because his Mum had let go of him and he then drowned in a fountain, has his Mum done anything wrong- no. However, does she get blamed (especially by herself)- yes. You could also blame the shopping centre for having a fountain etc.. Someone said something about reins (probably not spelled right)- if Jaime had been on reins this most probably wouldn't have happened. The reason(s) Jaime wasn't in reins are known to only one person, the same could be said of a pushchair. Blame doesn't mean wrongdoing to me, in this case, its more about what could have been done differently which could have resulted in a different outcome, (and I should have chosen my words more carefully). 3.) I was wrong to suggest criminal neglect, (actually I was being flippant) and I would withdraw that phrase but other posts wouldn't make sense. However, some of the anger may be down to the idea that becuase I've had child protection training during which you are taught to question the motives if something doesn't seem right and seek advice from someone senior who uses their experience to judge if it was malice or bad-luck. (Especially considering the amount child protection has been in the news). When a child is murdered (or something else horrid), something is always going to seem not right on the parent's behalf. Jaime's mum made several decisions that fateful day which if done differently might have stopped this from happening (like putting Jaime in reins/ a pushchair). I would say loads of people would have made the same decisions she made in the same circumstances but others wouldn't have. I'm not saying either decision is wrong or right but you are always going to feel a sense of blame if something goes wrong which could have been prevented by you making the other choice. This is why I said she shouldn't be absolved of ALL the blame, only a minute fraction of a decimal of a percentage of the blame could ever be pointed towards Jaime's mum and like I said she has unfortunatley had to deal with the consequences. By the sound of it Thompson and Venebles would have done something very similar (although maybe not with the same consequences) to some other poor unfortunate child, it was Jaime's mum's bad luck that she let go of Jaime's hand and gave them the opportunity to do what they did. The same way that the same decisions have been made in similar circumstances. What this whole episode has done is to teach parents of very young children that nasty things can happen and that I would like to think many more accidents have been prevented by this tragedy- for example by the more widespread use of reins/secured pushchairs- and its unfortunate that something so tragic had to happen for this to be the case. As some parents had learned to do things differently by personal experience but many many more hadn't that experience and I was fortuante to have an older brother who would put Houdini to shame and could have had dire consequences so I was trussed up tight. 4.) Regards to pranks gone wrong- it doesn't matter if the cause was accidental, stupidity, deliberate or a mixture of the three the victims get treated the same, and that is on clinical need. 5.) Anyone who gets burgled because they leave the door open has a portion of the blame for the burglary, IMHO. This is why you aren't necessarily covered by insurance. 6.) I realise that when what I said previously when taken the way I didn't mean (and I'm to blame for not making myslef clearer) makes me look like some heartless but that's not how I am. Although I wouldn't blame you for thinking as much as when I look back on what I said it is far far too easy to think as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 They battered the kid with bricks, stones and an iron bar, profusely. They shoved batteries in his mouth and then attempted to cover up the attack by putting his body on a rail way line......now which part of that could even suggest manslaughter? The argument of their age is completely fruitless. Manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibilty. (The crime Bronson is in a secure unit for- but that's because he's psychotic). Its not about their physical age its about their intellectual age (from which they should be able to work out what's right and wrong), if the lesson about murder being wrong hasn't sunk in, considering they blamed Chucky 3 then maybe it hadn't. Then IMO they aren't fully responsible and the blame for the difference between the two lies with the parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 (edited) Warning This reply is so long I was logged out before I could post it and most of it doesn't concern opinions post but the first bit does .... Thanks for the clarification. We could debate things backwards and forwards further but I think there are views that won't meet. Ultimately, if you're allowed out on licence and breach the terms of that licence you go back inside. The rules are clear and make sense to me. I would also speculate that whatever has happened recently isn't a first breach of those terms. All I would add is that a child of 2 years and 11 months of age does not sit in a pushchair, will not sit in a push-chair and probably should not be constrained in such a way as you would be inhibiting their development. Any use of a pushchair at that age would be an exception, and perhaps used when the little one is genuinely tired. Reins on a child of that age would (and probably should) only be used where the child has a habit of wandering off in an uncontrolled manner. I have no idea whether the victim was like this or not. Even if he was, no parent should really expect a child to get murdered. Edited March 6, 2010 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 (edited) rudemedic Your need to still place any "blame" on his mother is repugnant to be frank. Your understanding of the facts are some what warped as well The mother enters a shop. A moment or two later the restless toddler wanders out alone. Usually, a distracted parent is quickly in pursuit - and so, on that Friday afternoon, was Denise Bulger, who came hastily out of the shop, expecting to find two-year-old James nearby. But this was not the usual moment of anxiety speedily dispelled. A panicky search around the neighbouring shops came to nothing. James was missing. In the few moments the little boy had been at large in the enclosed shopping centre, two older boys had come upon him - Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, both aged 10. Now when establishing "blame" do you really think it is right, proper and fair to place it on the mothers shoulder. You turn your back for a second and your child can be off. Anyone who has taken a child around a shopping centre will know how kids will be there on second and not the next. Today there will be thousands of children's parents who will look around not see there kid, usually they are just the other side of the clothes rack, and yes sometimes they have got further. Should that parent then be expected to find there child lying next to a railway line ? Has that parent then be irresponsible ? I dam well say no.... Is there ANY parent in the world who has not lost sight of there children for a moment ? I say we blame the parents of the killer, the children that committed the act, the care system that did not detect the warning signs, the legal system that tried two kids as though they where adults etc... What you do not do is blame a mother who's only crime was not to strap her child to the pram... Now I have a challenge for you. Go into Oldham town centre today and count the number of kids on reins and the number of three year olds in pushchairs for any length of time. I reckon the grand total will be none. The JB case actually did very little to change the way parents behave. You know why, the chances of your kid being adducted are so small. The level of fear operating in the country is scary at the moment. The need to place blame and attack parents is scary. I am going to be a dad in a couple of weeks and its hard to look forward to it. Finally, can I suggest you stop bringing your work into this matter unless you want an extra level of criticism to fall onto your shoulders I was trying to keep out of this. You keep em-parting your flawed knowledge on us. I get the feeling your opinion is not only of someone who does not have children but as someone who has had very little contact with children at all... Edited March 6, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 I am going to be a dad in a couple of weeks and its hard to look forward to it. There is everything to look forward to. It goes fast though. Don't waste a moment of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 There is everything to look forward to. It goes fast though. Don't waste a moment of it. I am looking forward to it..Got so much fun ahead Just seems like a really bad time in our societys history to be a parent... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 I am looking forward to it..Got so much fun ahead Just seems like a really bad time in our societys history to be a parent... Every era says the same mate. If you think about it - at least your kid is not growing up in a World War, or at a time when medical science was truly archaic, when women had no rights, etc. etc. We live in a far from perfect society and should always strive for better. But it's certainly no worse than it's ever been before! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosa Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 The thing I found odd was about how long it must have took Venebles and Thompson to take Bulger to where they killed him, I know someone spotted them in that time but they wrongly believed him to be a younger brother or something. Having looked it up it seems some adults were duped by the excuse they were taking him to a police station- they have to have some responsability. If he escaped from his Mum for a couple of seconds (not necessarily the case according to the info I looked up) how long do you think she gave it before asking someone at the shopping centre when he hadn't returned, the cops should realistically have been looking for him BEFORE he was killed, that is what seems odd to me. It gives a pretty detailed account of what happened here. Maybe i'm readng it wrong but it looks like his mum reported him missing straight away. The security staff at the shopping centre made an announcement over the tannoy, assuming that he'd just wandered off, as kids do all the time in shops. When there was no response and she couldn't find him, she went to the security office again, and the police were called.Doubtless you're going to say that she shouldn't have left him outside the shop on his own, but a lot of parents would have done exactly the same thing if they'd already had to leave 3 shops because he was playing up, and they were only expecting to be a minute. What's heartbreaking about reading that is the number of people who saw them and thought something was wrong, including some who tried to intervene, but for whatever reason didn't manage to stop them. It's easy with hindsight to criticise people for not stopping them, but how many people would step in if they weren't sure what was happening? How many people would be scared of looking stupid if it turned out he was their brother (as they claimed)? I can't remember which paper it was at the time that ran an article criticising the witnesses who came forward to say that they'd seen the boys, labelling them 'the Liverpool 38', arguing that they must take some responsibility for the killing for standing by and doing nothing. Aside from the fact that that isn't true - one woman in particular, as that web article describes, wanted to take James to the police but had her own child with her and couldn't get anyone to mind her - it's easy after the event to kid yourself that you'd have stopped them, but, however wrongly,most people wouldn't want to get involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 I am looking forward to it..Got so much fun ahead Just seems like a really bad time in our societys history to be a parent... It's hard work, but it's worth every second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 it's easy after the event to kid yourself that you'd have stopped them, but, however wrongly,most people wouldn't want to get involved. Not only that, the two kids said James (not Jaime, or Jamie mind) was a brother. I think given the circumstances, most people would believe that. Why wouldn't you? You can't apportion blame to any bystanders really when it comes down to it. What happened was a tragic 'freak' occurrence, has never happened before and has never happened since. If a child goes missing, it's nearly always because he's genuinely wandered off and doesn't warrant a total lockdown of the area within 2 minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 Every era says the same mate. If you think about it - at least your kid is not growing up in a World War, or at a time when medical science was truly archaic, when women had no rights, etc. etc. We live in a far from perfect society and should always strive for better. But it's certainly no worse than it's ever been before! True to an extent... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkenyonqfc2 Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 alledgedly serious sexual incident if true hope he rots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Ronnie Moore Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 According to ITV, Venables has been bragging about his identity while he's been released. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkenyonqfc2 Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 According to ITV, Venables has been bragging about his identity while he's been released. yeah after all the money spent to give him a new id Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.