The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 13 Jul 2016, 10:11 am

First topic message reminder :

Huge case back in the 90s....Still is.........Very emotive and controversial.......Rightly so..

* Beautiful little three year old Jamie Bulger was taken from a shopping center by two "Ten year old boys" (Thompson and Venables) and left on a railway track after being violently killed.......

* The boys served 8 years in a youth offender's home and were controversially let out on licence and under supervision....

* The justice for Jamie group were understandably aggrieved at the sentence....As were the cops involved....

* Those defending the boys interests point to them being tried in an adult court at the age of ten as a violation of human rights....(It's 12-14 in a lot of other Countries)...Then again it wasn't your usual crime..

* Social workers in the offenders institute state the boys showed improvement and showed remorse for their crime..

* Jamie's mother and the campaign say they have never shown any remorse or said sorry for the murder....

* Venables has re-offended and has been found guilty of having and distributing "Child porn"...Sent to prison for 3 years..

* Thompson apparently passed his exams...Is in a decent job and is in a long term relationship.......

* Jamie's mother has stated if they had served some time in a grown up jail she would have attempted to move on...(seems a reasonable stance)

* Those defending the boys say if they had gone to a grown up jail they may have been corrupted and all the work put in to them been wasted....

Very difficult case........and a very tragic one.......

by Tattie Scones RRN Thu 21 Jul 2016, 2:37 pm

Upon reflection, perhaps it was a bit OTT.

Apologies Navy...it actually isn't the most ridiculous post by any stretch.

Hug

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 22 Jul 2016, 10:42 am

No worries. It was a hideous crime. Understand the emotive language but I'm just not sure I like the vengeance kind of talk, in general, that always surrounds things like this.

by McLaren Mon 25 Jul 2016, 1:52 pm

I am with Navy when he said that at ten they may not have understood what they were doing in the same way older children, children raised in a different environment, adolescents or adults would have.

Tattie claimed Navy made "possibly the most ridiculous post" on 606v2 but this has to be one of the most sensible: "As good an example as any of why the implementation of the legal system should stay as far away as possible from the feelings of the public"

Tattie

Non doubt your "leave" vote will eventually give your government the power to remove the human rights of "little sh*ts".

What would subjecting ten year olds to conditions that did not meet human rights standards achieve? Would it serve as a deterrent to other would be ten year old murderers? Would the family of the victims feel better? Would it produce two rehabilitated members of society? Could you be sure it wouldn't result in other groups losing human rights?

Why are people so gun ho when it comes to calling for certain groups to lose human rights, do you not think it could happen to you? Why take the risk?

by SecretFly Mon 25 Jul 2016, 3:27 pm

McLaren wrote:
Non doubt your "leave" vote will eventually give your government the power to remove the human rights of "little sh*ts".

What would subjecting ten year olds to conditions that did not meet human rights standards achieve? Would it serve as a deterrent to other would be ten year old murderers? Would the family of the victims feel better? Would it produce two rehabilitated members of society? Could you be sure it wouldn't result in other groups losing human rights?

Why are people so gun ho when it comes to calling for certain groups to lose human rights, do you not think it could happen to you? Why take the risk?

Well, already and almost immediately after that Brexit vote you alluded to, there were calls from a host of crying, weeping, distraught and 'bullied' OMG young City folk that the idiots that voted Leave (uneducated, lazy, country-living, rustic grandparent types) should be simply told: "Your votes don't count, we're not going to listen to them. You're not going to stop us enjoying passport-free sex'n'drugs'n'party trips to Europe! Your human right to vote shouldn't exist coz it's wot the Commons ought to be best at thinkin' about and doing right like in the interests of the YoungggHHHH!!!! and of people from civilised parts of the Realm like cities and stuff!!!!"

So no - human rights should only be for people who are Relevant and OMGtastically urban, mate. Wink

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 25 Jul 2016, 4:12 pm

SecretFly wrote:
McLaren wrote:
Non doubt your "leave" vote will eventually give your government the power to remove the human rights of "little sh*ts".

What would subjecting ten year olds to conditions that did not meet human rights standards achieve? Would it serve as a deterrent to other would be ten year old murderers? Would the family of the victims feel better? Would it produce two rehabilitated members of society? Could you be sure it wouldn't result in other groups losing human rights?

Why are people so gun ho when it comes to calling for certain groups to lose human rights, do you not think it could happen to you? Why take the risk?

Well, already and almost immediately after that Brexit vote you alluded to, there were calls from a host of crying, weeping, distraught and 'bullied' OMG young City folk that the idiots that voted Leave (uneducated, lazy, country-living, rustic grandparent types) should be simply told: "Your votes don't count, we're not going to listen to them. You're not going to stop us enjoying passport-free sex'n'drugs'n'party trips to Europe! Your human right to vote shouldn't exist coz it's wot the Commons ought to be best at thinkin' about and doing right like in the interests of the YoungggHHHH!!!! and of people from civilised parts of the Realm like cities and stuff!!!!"

So no - human rights should only be for people who are Relevant and OMGtastically urban, mate.

Aside from the usual bumkum, what does the above have to do with the comment about the idea that people are too gung-ho in calling for removal of basic human rights from one group of people or another? Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

by McLaren Mon 25 Jul 2016, 4:45 pm

SecretFly

Not sure what that has to with the points I made about how to determine who should have their human rights revoked?

Also, what is with using "OMG" as an adjective to describe the sort of person you think voted to remain and supports human rights? Chip on the shoulder?

by SecretFly Mon 25 Jul 2016, 5:17 pm

The Post-Brexit REAL emotions of considered educated and young citylites v uneducated and old country folks has everything to do with the idea of human rights, and why some people at certain times want to so casually dismiss them.

So I guess my answer - to both of you, both McLaren and navy, is that I actually agree with McLaren, but use a completely different example to make his own point feel a little less sure-footed than he might have suspected.

We're all hypocrites really. We've all hit a curve in the road when our principles had to be quickly modified to suit our opinions on any given day.

by McLaren Mon 25 Jul 2016, 6:10 pm

I am confused, are you suggesting that because those that voted to leave were mostly poorly educated their human rights had been breached due to not getting the education they should have done?

by SecretFly Mon 25 Jul 2016, 6:36 pm

?

I'm saying the publicity (the propaganda) in the mainstream media in the immediate aftermath was twofold:

1) The theme was that those that mostly voted for Remain were younger, more urban and more educated (therefore more knowledgeable) than those that voted Leave, who were painted as less well educated, more rural, not 'informed' and older.

2) The mood was that the Leavers were not informed enough or of the right age group to have their decision respected. So the media ran with the idea that the young want to remain and a way should be found to make it so - if that meant another referendum or just disregarding the one that happened, as in not initiating Article 50, then so be it

So - a casual denunciation of the rights of one group (the referendum winners) over the supposed superior rights of another group (the referendum losers). A gung ho treatment of rights.

by **Galted** Mon 25 Jul 2016, 7:41 pm

SecretFly wrote:?

I'm saying the publicity (the propaganda) in the mainstream media in the immediate aftermath was twofold:

1) The theme was that those that mostly voted for Remain were younger, more urban and more educated (therefore more knowledgeable) than those that voted Leave, who were painted as less well educated, more rural, not 'informed' and older.

2) The mood was that the Leavers were not informed enough or of the right age group to have their decision respected. So the media ran with the idea that the young want to remain and a way should be found to make it so - if that meant another referendum or just disregarding the one that happened, as in not initiating Article 50, then so be it

So - a casual denunciation of the rights of one group (the referendum winners) over the supposed superior rights of another group (the referendum losers). A gung ho treatment of rights.

So what you are saying is you should never lend your neighbour your favourite canoe if he doesn't prune your dahlias while you're luncheoning with Bertram and Sebastian?

by SecretFly Mon 25 Jul 2016, 8:50 pm

Absolutely fair-dinkum spot on Galted!

You see.... it's only super intelligent Remain lads that understand me Wink

by **Galted** Mon 25 Jul 2016, 9:15 pm

We should run the country in the evenings and on Sundays.

by McLaren Tue 26 Jul 2016, 9:42 am

SecretFly

What more do you want than the Prime minister saying "Brexit means Brexit"?

Also, research showed that level of education was a major predictor of how people would vote, it wasn't just that commentators decided those who voted leave were stupid.

PS, has anyone read the Jigsaw Man by Paul Britton? It contains some more details of what happened to Bulger and it was not simply a case of the boys killing him, they also carried out some odd acts on his body before striking the crucial blow and tying him to the rail line. I think this shows that these kids were pretty messed up and that rehabilitation was the best course of action.

by Tattie Scones RRN Tue 26 Jul 2016, 1:09 pm

McLaren wrote:I am with Navy when he said that at ten they may not have understood what they were doing in the same way older children, children raised in a different environment, adolescents or adults would have.

Tattie claimed Navy made "possibly the most ridiculous post" on 606v2 but this has to be one of the most sensible: "As good an example as any of why the implementation of the legal system should stay as far away as possible from the feelings of the public"

Tattie

Non doubt your "leave" vote will eventually give your government the power to remove the human rights of "little sh*ts".

What would subjecting ten year olds to conditions that did not meet human rights standards achieve? Would it serve as a deterrent to other would be ten year old murderers? Would the family of the victims feel better? Would it produce two rehabilitated members of society? Could you be sure it wouldn't result in other groups losing human rights?

Why are people so gun ho when it comes to calling for certain groups to lose human rights, do you not think it could happen to you? Why take the risk?

WTF has my leave vote got anything to do with this case?

What an odd comment.

by McLaren Tue 26 Jul 2016, 1:31 pm

Tattie

Not that odd really. The pea brains that voted leave have been complaining about the burdon of having human rights for years. Brexit is your chance to get rid of them.

You said in your post "People talk of the two little sh*ts' human rights????", I assume you would prefer they didn't have any? Can you see the link now?

by Duty281 Tue 26 Jul 2016, 1:37 pm

McLaren wrote:Tattie

Not that odd really. The pea brains that voted leave have been complaining about the burdon of having human rights for years. Brexit is your chance to get rid of them.

You said in your post "People talk of the two little sh*ts' human rights????", I assume you would prefer they didn't have any? Can you see the link now?

Our human rights are not enshrined by the EU. We had human rights long before the year 2000.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 26 Jul 2016, 1:53 pm

Seems this case is ever present or it has been for 20 odd years...Mrs Bulger has never had the chance to get a handle or humanise her Son's killers and the two boys I imagine are forever looking over their shoulders wondering if they are going to be made to pay by a vengeful public....They have had no shortage of threats..

Not interested in the scum bag found with child porn..

One wonders though if a meeting between Thompson and Mrs Bulger may help in finding a hint of closure in this tragic case..

Meetings are arranged between killers and victim's relatives in other cases......To good effect..

Or perhaps this case is too big.....

by Tattie Scones RRN Tue 26 Jul 2016, 2:30 pm

McLaren wrote:Tattie

Not that odd really. The pea brains that voted leave have been complaining about the burdon of having human rights for years. Brexit is your chance to get rid of them.

You said in your post "People talk of the two little sh*ts' human rights????", I assume you would prefer they didn't have any? Can you see the link now?

Firstly, I find it rather insulting that you believe all leave voters are thick. I have been educated to a good standard and have a successful career. I also know a lot of leave voters who also have degrees and are in positions higher than most. I assume you've read my posts on the matter which if you have, you'll note my reasons for voting leave which had nothing to do with immigration or human rights. But people like you, for some reason, firmly believe that all 17.5m people who voted leave are racist school dropouts. The bigotry is ironic don't you think?

Secondly, if I have stated that the two murderers should have been stripped of all human rights (i.e. kept in a damp cell with no food or water), then I apologise. But I didn't, so it's a non-story. What I do have an issue with is the punishment they received for the crime they committed. I mean, supervised leave? Seriously, I find it incredulous that they were given all these privileges considering the seriousness of their acts so god only knows what JBs family must have felt.

They didn't shoplift sweeties. They brutally tortured a defenceless little boy to death. Anyone who seriously believes they received adequate punishment for what they did are actually the ones with pea-sized brains.....not the leave voters.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 26 Jul 2016, 2:36 pm

Society and the law deem they have.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 26 Jul 2016, 2:37 pm

You're more than entitled to your point of view and it is welcome Tattie...

It's a case that brings out emotion...

I was for in the EU....But in didn't promote its case well enough...

No reason to believe anyone was thick in voting out..

Think it will turn out to be a bad decision though..

by Tattie Scones RRN Tue 26 Jul 2016, 2:40 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Society and the law deem they have.

Sorry pal, you'll have to explain that one to me in more detail.....

by Tattie Scones RRN Tue 26 Jul 2016, 2:43 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You're more than entitled to your point of view and it is welcome Tattie...

It's a case that brings out emotion...

I was for in the EU....But in didn't promote its case well enough...

No reason to believe anyone was thick in voting out..

Think it will turn out to be a bad decision though..

Completely agree Truss, but unfortunately too many people genuinely believe it. The same people who know absolutely nothing about the individuals who voted out. But like you say, everyone is entitled to their opinion - ill-informed or not.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 26 Jul 2016, 2:47 pm

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Society and the law deem they have.

Sorry pal, you'll have to explain that one to me in more detail.....

They've served their time as was agreed. I'd personally say that prison etc is as much about rehabilitation as much as punishment as well.

by Duty281 Tue 26 Jul 2016, 2:54 pm

Do murderers ever deserve the chance of rehabilitation, of rebuilding their own life, when they have taken the life of someone else?

Poor Jamie Bulger has no chance of rehabilitation. Nor do his parents.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 26 Jul 2016, 2:55 pm

Yes they do.

by Tattie Scones RRN Tue 26 Jul 2016, 3:01 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Society and the law deem they have.

Sorry pal, you'll have to explain that one to me in more detail.....

They've served their time as was agreed. I'd personally say that prison etc is as much about rehabilitation as much as punishment as well.

Agreed by who exactly?

And the rehab really worked on the one that reoffended.

by Tattie Scones RRN Tue 26 Jul 2016, 3:03 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes they do.

Mmmmmm...you think that rehab is going to help JBs family get over this?

They'll never get over it.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 26 Jul 2016, 3:08 pm

Agreed by the politicians and officials we all elect Tattie. Rehab doesn't always work, Tattie but as you say it has for one of them seemingly.

Rehab? You mean some therapy etc surely? I'm sure it'll help but not sure most people would get over it. Bit of a sidestep to sentence though.

by Guest Tue 26 Jul 2016, 3:11 pm

The purpose of prison is first a foremost a loss of liberty. It would only be deemed as "punishment" by those whose lives were significantly better outside prison (the businessman jailed for fraud etc) There are a large number of people in prison who know that inside they get a warm bed and three meals a day which is something of a luxury compared to their everyday home life. As for rehabilitation, the levels of recidivism are still very high which suggests that for many prisoners, rehabilitation is not an option. Remember, you have to want to change in order for it to work.

Also, the Law puts the age of criminal responsibility at 10 years old, I think it used to be 12 but essentially it's been decreed that 10 years old is more than enough to know the difference between "right" and "wrong"

Think the Bulger case was also the catalyst for the pointless kneejerk reaction that was the banning of the "Chucky" films as that what these two had been watching. It tends to suggest that there may have been a lack of parental supervision/guidance which is vital at a young age.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 26 Jul 2016, 3:34 pm

Of course the answer to that is....

A. Why do people from good backgrounds kill..

B. Why don't more kids with inadequate parenting commit more murders like this...

No one knows really much about it...I guess it's one of the reasons this case is still very much in the news..

by Guest Tue 26 Jul 2016, 3:45 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Of course the answer to that is....

A. Why do people from good backgrounds kill..

B. Why don't more kids with inadequate parenting commit more murders like this...

No one knows really much about it...I guess it's one of the reasons this case is still very much in the news..

A/ Greed? Jeremy Bamber springs to mind.

B/ Taking out the cases involving those with genuine mental health issues, it still comes down to personal choice at the end of the day. You choose to be good or bad. I despise this "The Devil/Mary Berry made me do it" hogwash. You chose to commit a crime and you got caught, you should accept the punishment that comes with it. Doesn't even have to be murder, you can be a bloke who cheats on his missus with high class hookers, Mr Rooney. You got caught, accept that you made that choice and accept the consequences (which, bizarrely seemed to be a promotion and a £50k a week pay rise...maybe that's not a great example)

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 26 Jul 2016, 4:20 pm

Too simplistic for me.

...Ted Bundy was a very intelligent guy who killed 50 women...

He did it because he chose too ??..Yes and no....I don't believe anyone would willingly choose to do that..

Personally I think there is more than one trigger that creates these killers....which is why these cases are so rare..

Unfortunately in my opinion all the triggers combined in the Bulger case..

Poor little Jamie suffered the tragic consequences. .

by Guest Tue 26 Jul 2016, 5:09 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Too simplistic for me.

...Ted Bundy was a very intelligent guy who killed 50 women...
Intelligence levels have no bearing on sociopathic behaviour, Bundy knew it was wrong but simply didn't care, the "rules" governing decent behavior didn't matter to him. There are plenty of killers who are able to function in so-called "normal" society without drawing attention to themselves as they know that abhorrent behavior will draw unwanted attention. This is why friends and neighbours always say that they seemed like an ordinary person. Always amazes me how many people knew that someone wasn't right, but only ever AFTER they've killed someone. Although I would like to hear someone say, "What? Old Stabber McGee three doors down? Surprised it's taken this long to catch him I've called the police four times, he's already killed five of my wives that I know of

He did it because he chose too ??..Yes and no....I don't believe anyone would willingly choose to do that..

Richard Ramirez did. He enjoyed killing and torture. Look at Harold Shipman, Dennis Neilsen etc

Personally I think there is more than one trigger that creates these killers....which is why these cases are so rare..

Unfortunately in my opinion all the triggers combined in the Bulger case..

Poor little Jamie suffered the tragic consequences. .

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue 26 Jul 2016, 5:23 pm

Too simplistic again for me..

The impulses to kill overcame what was right or wrong in my opinion for Bundy. ....He admitted he panicked after every murder and couldn't believe the disorganised nature of his crimes

As for Ramirez i'm not the one making a one size fits all argument..

I see your points and welcome them.. but my outlook is a little less black and white..

by Guest Tue 26 Jul 2016, 6:02 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Too simplistic again for me..

The impulses to kill overcame what was right or wrong in my opinion for Bundy. ....He admitted he panicked after every murder and couldn't believe the disorganised nature of his crimes

As for Ramirez i'm not the one making a one size fits all argument..

I see your points and welcome them.. but my outlook is a little less black and white..

Whereas I think he simply didn't care, it had no effect on him and claiming later that he felt panic is garbage. Guys like these get caught through sloppiness which comes from arrogance born of the belief that they are above the law then claim they suffered all manner of emotion to try and humanize themselves in the eyes of the law and the public.

Others like Ramirez reveled in the widespread fear and panic they caused and we happy to be seen as demons in human form

Ultimately they both knew what they were doing.

Going back to the Bulger killers, they too knew what they were doing was wrong. You cannot live in modern society without an understanding that certain acts are wrong. I don't care if you live in a family of toerags and scrotes, you know what's right and what's wrong and for people to say they were just children is no mitigation. My daughter is four and I'd like to think that even if I was the most uncaring father alive, she could not go the next six years without coming into the concepts of right and wrong and know the difference between the two.

by TRUSSMAN66 Wed 19 Oct 2016, 11:09 am

Denise Bulger apparently is worried that the two boys are taunting her on line...

I'd be very doubtful if this was the case....Should think the last thing the killers want to do is hark back to that period of their lives...

Perhaps it is an attempt to keep the case in the public mind...who knows ???

Not sure that is a good idea.....These kids took your Son's life don't let them take yours as well..

by Sponsored content

The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....

Re: The Jamie Bulger case - 20 years on....