sccsux Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Like I have said previously you're an argumentative ****. Just because someone doesn't share your view, there is no need to be downright insulting. Oh I doubt that, if you had you wouldn't come across as being so thick. Insulting again? Are all social workers (substitute the "or" with "an" in the word workers for their true title) as nasty as you? Makes no wonder why they have such a poor reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Has Jack Straw confirmed that he was recalled because of child porn found on his computer? I've read about 4 different things as to what he's alleged to have done ranging from a fight at work, revealing his identity, and the child porn on his computer. I'd say all of those things would be considered serious given he was on license under a new identity. To my knowledge it's child porn sex offences. Thats not to say it mind you.. time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Time will tell. Time certainly will tell. It may tell us he has actually done something wrong, or, alternatively, it may tell us he's done nothing wrong. until the evidence is tried, none of us know. ...And of course, until then V is still innocent. and even after that, he would only be guilty if the evidence is found proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 I have thought about this point, but this is what troubles me about this case. I have known many many people that have had horrific childhoods. Truly shocking some of them tbh and yes, those people are damaged, but none of them have gone out ,abducted and murdered another child. I really think there has to be something else inside those two boys that enabled them to do this crime. I dont disagree kayde, just because you've had a poor upbringing doesnt mean you're guaranteed to become a criminal, if it was cases like the Bulger one would be the norm rather than the exception. I think with Thompson & Venables there was a series of catastrophic events that came to bear, a number of factors that create the environment where bad things are going to happen. These lads independently were probably witness to extreme acts of sadism, maybe at home, maybe from torturing animals, being bullied by their parents or siblings or watching violent videos or video games. Alone their behaviour might have been moderated within the socially accepted norms that they will have been aware of, but as a joint enterprise their juvenile imaginations ran away with them, one egging on the other to more vile acts, the ultimate being the abduction, torture and murder of James Bulger. Of course I'm telling a fictitious story, I've no idea what their influences were, but children dont make up behaving in an evil way, it's learned behaviour. The thought that your child may be friends with these boys. Another good point, I've often thought about how the kids that they affiliated with ended up, or whether they were insular lone players. It would be interesting to find out if we ever could. Can we really ever say that thing inside them has gone ? I'm not sure tbh. Maybe experts have said yes, but in the case of " V " that was the wrong decision. No matter what the crime , if he cannot follow the rules set to live amongst us, he should have that right taken away. If he's found to have breached his license conditions and worse committed a new offence, his right to live amongst us will be taken away. I think they were both convicted on life sentences, which means they can be returned to serve out the balance of their sentences if they digress. The problem for me is, if they get it wrong once, they can get it wrong again. For me releasing them is a gamble that might cost someone too much. I agree, but whilst we vilify the system for perhaps making a mistake with Venables, we shouldnt lose sight of the fact that Thompson hasnt re offended in 9 years, so maybe he has seen a positive change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kazads53 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 kazads, 1) as others keep repeating, despite the selective deafness of some of the readers of this thread; At the moment, V is innocent of any crime. He has not been convicted:- he has not even been tried, as yet, for any crime (apart from his original one, of course). so your "he wouldn't be locked up" theory is out of the window. 2) As I said in a previous post which you seem to choose to ignore, I support the judge at the original trial, who considered a minimum of eight years was entirely appropriate for the crime, considering the extreme youth of T & V. 3) how else can the actions, screaming and baying for V&T's blood, of some be described except as "Pitchfork-waving"? It's not a demand for justice, it's nothing more than vengeance. there's light years between the two. 4) I don't need to put myself in the shoes of James' parents. There have been members of my family, and friends of mine who have been murdered and /or unlawfully killed. I know what it's like to have a loved one taken. One friend of mine, a former house-mate, was battered, and left to die, in a ditch, in the countryside. It took her 24-48 hours to die, as she lay there, beaten - according to the pathologist who did her autopsy. The killer was not found for nearly two years, and tried a year or so after that. The killer was convicted, and he was sentenced. It took a heck of a long time - nearly 3 1/2 years - but justice was done. He's locked away now, where he can't do harm. That's a satisfactory outcome. No pitchforks wielded, anywhere. Locked away....... yep that sounds like a satisfactory conclusion....oh if only James Bulgers killers were!!!!..you couldnt make it up:loopy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Time certainly will tell. It may tell us he has actually done something wrong, or, alternatively, it may tell us he's done nothing wrong. until the evidence is tried, none of us know. ...And of course, until then V is still innocent. and even after that, he would only be guilty if the evidence is found proven. We're all guilty by reason of suspicion I'm afraid. I'm on me way down to hand mesen in...not sure what for but I'll give it a shot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 errr this one: Yes thats the one. Now would you be so kind as to provide the ealier posts of mine that have been out of all context, as that will corroberate the obove. Thanks Zaytsev! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 being a prat seems to be a firm favourite with yourself, sadly. Wheres your compassion gone PT:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 The only manifestation of psychosis evident here is being displayed by yourself. In all seriousness I think you need help. Another projection?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 And again you misquote. Straw mentioned serious allegations not evidence. What do mean?.. you started the thread yer div.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.