Does Buzzjack have an off-topic Smiley as it's needed when threads keep going in to arguments about the Tories. :angry:

:offtopic:

Does Buzzjack have an off-topic Smiley as it's needed when threads keep going in to arguments about the Tories. :angry:

 

sometimes topics evolve and bring in new factors, a wider view is better then a narrow one,.

 

the fact is that the country we are living in now does so on a huge legacy of what went before, and thatcher was the architect of many of todays policies and life styles.

 

ive already said that as we dont know any FACTS this thread is a lame duck, we are all sumising, guessing, as to what is what. thats all well and good, its an interesting thread, but ultimately itll be one that cannot be resolved, unlike arguments about previous governments.

I know at 10 that I never contemplated abducting kids and beating them with iron bars nor do I know anyone else who was that way inclined, reason ??? I knew the difference between right and wrong as did my friends

I'm guessing you had the luxury of coming from a non-abusive family. Venables and Thompson didn't have that luxury.

When you're 10, your ENTIRE sense of right and wrong comes from your family. It simply doesn't occur to you to question what they do, a 10-year-old doesn't have the ability to think "now, wait a minute, what if my family are wrong on this?" To 10-year-olds, it just goes without saying that your family is representative of the whole world. One of those two kids (I've forgotten which one) had loads of older brothers I remember, and they all tortured him. To his mind, it just seemed that that was what kids did, torture people younger than them. So he didn't see anything wrong with what he did to Jamie Bulger, because it just didn't conflict with his view of right and wrong. It's unlikely he would've seen the bigger picture, that the person might actually be in serious pain, and that he might actually die.

Now, I'm not condoning what they did for a SECOND, I think the sentence they got was appropriate for what they did, taking in the circumstances. But they've served that now, and they should be allowed to get on with their lives. I do think it's morally wrong for him to not tell the person he's marrying who he is though... although then again, The Daily Mail probably pulled the whole thing out of their arse anyway. It's been a while since their last hate campaign, so I guess they're revisiting some of their all-time favourites. :puke2:

Edited July 24, 200717 yr by Danny

One of those two kids (I've forgotten which one) had loads of older brothers I remember, and they all tortured him. To his mind, it just seemed that that was what kids did, torture people younger than them. So he didn't see anything wrong with what he did to Jamie Bulger, because it just didn't conflict with his view of right and wrong. It's unlikely he would've seen the bigger picture, that the person might actually be in serious pain, and that he might actually die

 

Then the opposite should be the case Danny

 

If he was getting tortured by his brothers he of all people would know how seriously painful it was and how would not wish that on anyone

 

If he was getting attacked by his brothers then he will have felt pain so would know that what he would do to Bulger would cause pain

 

Then the opposite should be the case Danny

 

If he was getting tortured by his brothers he of all people would know how seriously painful it was and how would not wish that on anyone

 

If he was getting attacked by his brothers then he will have felt pain so would know that what he would do to Bulger would cause pain

That's not how a 10-year-old would think though. In his eyes, that would just have been what you did to kids younger than you. ALL kids until they're about 12 or 13 look down on kids younger than them in some way, and show that they're superior to them, though admittedly, most don't take it as far as Venables and Thompson did.

Then the opposite should be the case Danny

 

If he was getting tortured by his brothers he of all people would know how seriously painful it was and how would not wish that on anyone

 

If he was getting attacked by his brothers then he will have felt pain so would know that what he would do to Bulger would cause pain

 

 

it doesnt work like that though..... sexual abusers were often sexually abused and dispite their personal pain they need to excorcise it by inflicting it on someone else...

 

do you know that a huge percentage of sexual abuse in children is committed by childeren upon other children?.. its as if abusers need to release this experience through enacting it out. kids that have been abused do things with dolls, things that they wouldnt know unless thet had been exposed to it...

 

so no, you are wrong, in many ways that boy was as much as a victim as jamie bulger himself...

eh?... whats with the last two posts being different style from normal? grey background?..

....... and shoat m8, this aint poptrash so please dont start making jibes at people here :)

A marriage hiding a secret as big as this is doomed to failure.

...and does every single "discussion" have to come down to a foul mouthed slagging off of the Conservative party? :rolleyes:

 

Well, Craig brought up the case of the "old dear" who lived down the street from him losing her house, like THAT has anything to do with Thomson and Venables, how on earth they can be held accountable for that just boggles the mind to be honest, so I put him right on a few facts that were clearly a bit uncomfortable for him to hear - ie, the old dear losing her house was probably more as a consequence of selfish morons voting for the Tories.....

 

it doesnt work like that though..... sexual abusers were often sexually abused and dispite their personal pain they need to excorcise it by inflicting it on someone else...

 

do you know that a huge percentage of sexual abuse in children is committed by childeren upon other children?.. its as if abusers need to release this experience through enacting it out. kids that have been abused do things with dolls, things that they wouldnt know unless thet had been exposed to it...

 

so no, you are wrong, in many ways that boy was as much as a victim as jamie bulger himself...

 

Spot on Rob, the cycle of the abused becoming the abuser is a clearly defined psychological one, there is no such thing as an "evil gene"... The facts are, that these boys had evil committed upon them and it twisted them up in their psyches so much that it became normal behaviour, so it brings me back to my argument - adults are the ones who are ultimately responsible here, for either committing the abuse themselves or for not giving a toss and allowing it to happen. I dont condone what Thomson and Venables did, but I sure as hell understand the reasons why it happened, and because they were kids when they did what they did, I dont believe that they are actually evil.. Of course, if they commit an offence of a similar nature as adults, that will be a different story, but I dont think they actually will, because they've managed to get the psychiatric help as children that serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Eileen Wournos did not....

 

Speaking of Eileen Wournos, I suppose you think she was evil dont you Craig, despite a whole LIFETIME (not just as a child...) of being systematically raped, abused, tortured, being forced to sell herself to strangers who would abuse and beat her as well.... No, she was a victim too mate, most of the men she killed were lowlife woman-hating whoremongers who frankly had it coming....

Well, Craig brought up the case of the "old dear" who lived down the street from him losing her house, like THAT has anything to do with Thomson and Venables, how on earth they can be held accountable for that just boggles the mind to be honest, so I put him right on a few facts that were clearly a bit uncomfortable for him to hear - ie, the old dear losing her house was probably more as a consequence of selfish morons voting for the Tories.....

 

The reason I bought her up was about the cost to me the taxpayer of protecting Venables and Thompson so it was on topic, I gave an example of someone who should be receiving taxpayers money (the old dear) against someone who should not be (Venables and Thompson) to highlight the fact she is a far more deserving case for financial aid

 

£4m has been spent protecting them and that is £4m too much

Spot on Rob, the cycle of the abused becoming the abuser is a clearly defined psychological one, there is no such thing as an "evil gene"... The facts are, that these boys had evil committed upon them and it twisted them up in their psyches so much that it became normal behaviour, so it brings me back to my argument - adults are the ones who are ultimately responsible here, for either committing the abuse themselves or for not giving a toss and allowing it to happen. I dont condone what Thomson and Venables did, but I sure as hell understand the reasons why it happened, and because they were kids when they did what they did, I dont believe that they are actually evil.. Of course, if they commit an offence of a similar nature as adults, that will be a different story, but I dont think they actually will, because they've managed to get the psychiatric help as children that serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Eileen Wournos did not....

 

Speaking of Eileen Wournos, I suppose you think she was evil dont you Craig, despite a whole LIFETIME (not just as a child...) of being systematically raped, abused, tortured, being forced to sell herself to strangers who would abuse and beat her as well.... No, she was a victim too mate, most of the men she killed were lowlife whoremongers who frankly had it coming....

 

One of my mates I grew up with on the council estate I lived in had an alcoholic stepfather who used to beat him to a pulp and a mum that used to be out of her tree on drink and drugs and used to stub cigarettes out on him while the stepfather held him down, this went on for a long period of time yet did he go out and abduct and kill kids ? no he didn't, the thought never even crossed his mind, infact in the 7 years that I knew him I never so much as saw him steal a penny chew yet his family life was f***ed up beyond belief so given what he was going through why did he not do what Venables and Thompson did ? I suspect his home life was more f***ed up than those 2 so why did my friend I grew up with not kill or commit violent crimes ? I maintain that he was born good and moralistic and Venables and Thompson were born evil

One of my mates I grew up with on the council estate I lived in had an alcoholic stepfather who used to beat him to a pulp and a mum that used to be out of her tree on drink and drugs and used to stub cigarettes out on him while the stepfather held him down, this went on for a long period of time yet did he go out and abduct and kill kids ? no he didn't, the thought never even crossed his mind, infact in the 7 years that I knew him I never so much as saw him steal a penny chew yet his family life was f***ed up beyond belief so given what he was going through why did he not do what Venables and Thompson did ? I suspect his home life was more f***ed up than those 2 so why did my friend I grew up with not kill or commit violent crimes ? I maintain that he was born good and moralistic and Venables and Thompson were born evil

 

Some people internalise it, and others externalise it, again, another established Psychological fact.... I suspect your friend is or was likely to be a Self-harmer, perhaps cutting himself with knives or scissors to relieve the pain of what he was going through..... "Morals" dont even play into it Craig... I actually believe that on their own, neither one of them would have committed this act, but together, some sort of transferrance took place and this is what led to the event happening.... Two lonely, abused, scarred little boys each feeding off the other... Not an "evil gene" at all, but psychological tranferrance.....

The reason I bought her up was about the cost to me the taxpayer of protecting Venables and Thompson so it was on topic, I gave an example of someone who should be receiving taxpayers money (the old dear) against someone who should not be (Venables and Thompson) to highlight the fact she is a far more deserving case for financial aid

 

£4m has been spent protecting them and that is £4m too much

 

And again, you talk rubbish... You have to protect these guys from morons out there who have threatened to kill them... Well, you obviously dont give a sh!t, but thank God you dont run the country, because you'd happily see gangs of vigilantes run around the streets dispensing "justice" to anyone they see fit to dispense it to wouldn't you....? The sorts of pig-sh!t thick morons who cant even distinguish between a Peadiatrician and a Paedophile......

 

And I repeat, the Old Dear did NOT lose her house because of Thomson and Venables being given protection, they lost it because the NHS is so fukked-up because of the Party YOU voted for....... Just what does the Criminal Justice budget have to do with the NHS or Pensions budget....?? Totally different funds for totally different things.....

And again, you talk rubbish... You have to protect these guys from morons out there who have threatened to kill them... Well, you obviously dont give a sh!t, but thank God you dont run the country, because you'd happily see gangs of vigilantes run around the streets dispensing "justice" to anyone they see fit to dispense it to wouldn't you....? The sorts of pig-sh!t thick morons who cant even distinguish between a Peadiatrician and a Paedophile......

 

And I repeat, the Old Dear did NOT lose her house because of Thomson and Venables being given protection, they lost it because the NHS is so fukked-up because of the Party YOU voted for....... Just what does the Criminal Justice budget have to do with the NHS or Pensions budget....?? Totally different funds for totally different things.....

 

Every murderer and rapist who is released from prison is at risk of revenge attacks, every murder or rape victim has family members that would love to get revenge for what the killer did so why aren't they all receiving £4m protection money too ? their lives are every bit as in danger as Thompson and Venables's lives are/were

 

If Thompson and Venables are smart they would have changed their name by deed poll, got a nose job done and bought a wig and would lie low, that does not cost £4m

 

Every murderer and rapist who is released from prison is at risk of revenge attacks, every murder or rape victim has family members that would love to get revenge for what the killer did so why aren't they all receiving £4m protection money too ? their lives are every bit as in danger as Thompson and Venables's lives are/were

 

Not every murder or rape has had the hysterical, sensationalistic press coverage that this case did though mate.... The sheer volume of hatred directed at Thomson and Venables was just plain sick to be honest, I mean, Christ, supposedly GROWN, MATURE ADULTS attempting to rush a police van in order to beat two children to death?????? Regardless of what they did, that is sheer madness, and it illustrates just why they do need the sort of protection they do....

 

Not every murder or rape has had the hysterical, sensationalistic press coverage that this case did though mate.... The sheer volume of hatred directed at Thomson and Venables was just plain sick to be honest, I mean, Christ, supposedly GROWN, MATURE ADULTS attempting to rush a police van in order to beat two children to death?????? Regardless of what they did, that is sheer madness, and it illustrates just why they do need the sort of protection they do....

 

The last pictures anyone saw of them was when they were 10 though, by the time they got out of prison at 19 they would be totally unrecognisable compared with when they were 10 and even more so now at 24, unless they blabbed about it I think it highly unlikely that anyone would recognise them even when they got out of prison hence why I think they don't need the police protection

The last pictures anyone saw of them was when they were 10 though, by the time they got out of prison at 19 they would be totally unrecognisable compared with when they were 10 and even more so now at 24, unless they blabbed about it I think it highly unlikely that anyone would recognise them even when they got out of prison hence why I think they don't need the police protection

 

Well, they did the same thing for Mary Bell, gave her a new identity, new life, etc, so not to do the same thing here I think would've been a tad foolish....

I'm guessing you had the luxury of coming from a non-abusive family. Venables and Thompson didn't have that luxury.

When you're 10, your ENTIRE sense of right and wrong comes from your family. It simply doesn't occur to you to question what they do, a 10-year-old doesn't have the ability to think "now, wait a minute, what if my family are wrong on this?" To 10-year-olds, it just goes without saying that your family is representative of the whole world. One of those two kids (I've forgotten which one) had loads of older brothers I remember, and they all tortured him. To his mind, it just seemed that that was what kids did, torture people younger than them. So he didn't see anything wrong with what he did to Jamie Bulger, because it just didn't conflict with his view of right and wrong. It's unlikely he would've seen the bigger picture, that the person might actually be in serious pain, and that he might actually die.

Now, I'm not condoning what they did for a SECOND, I think the sentence they got was appropriate for what they did, taking in the circumstances. But they've served that now, and they should be allowed to get on with their lives. I do think it's morally wrong for him to not tell the person he's marrying who he is though... although then again, The Daily Mail probably pulled the whole thing out of their arse anyway. It's been a while since their last hate campaign, so I guess they're revisiting some of their all-time favourites. :puke2:

 

Spot on Danny... Unless any of us come from this sort of background of systematic abuse and a completely twisted, abnormal upbringing, then we cannot possibly understand what is going through the heads of these individuals... It's all very well to say "not everyone who comes from an abusive background turns into a killer and goes out and does things like that", but it often turns out that the ones that dont become self-harmers, substance abusers, or become prostitutes, but pretty much all suffer such low self-esteem that they are incapable of seeing the damage they do to themselves... It is also true that just about every Serial Killer or Sex Killer out there has come from such an abusive background... "Monsters" are created, not born....

Politics aside, my view is simple: If you start off a marriage (which to me is based on trust and commitment) with a secret as big as this, it will never survive.

 

I don't see how the press know about this ... surely if they know he's getting married they know who he is? Or have I misread something?