Moosey Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Arguably they wouldn't have attracted the attention of the journalists if they hadn't committed a crime mel And that is the defence the papers could use. Ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Well said hun x Be careful what you kiss online, you may attract a sex pest or summat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 "Flame away" at me if you will, but surely to God, wouldn't James' parents have done more to honour his awful death by channelling their (quite understandable) grief, in focussing on launching some sort of charitable foundation to address issues of "disaffection" (for want of a better word to describe the ennui of youth) which would hopefully avert such tragedies happening in future? (or at least give other children some positivity to build their futures uopn) It may be the "soundbites" thing with the media, but whenever they are wheeled out for the cameras, it always seems that all they have to offer is venom to direct at Thompson and Venables. Yes, what T&V did was absolutely heinous, but in directing their vitriol only in the direction of T&V, there's no closure, there's no moving on... Is that honouring their child? Is that permitting him to rest in peace? Is it actually benefiting society at large? I'm not trying to say that the Bulgers' loss is something that is easily gotten-over. You can't really get over something like that... But what you can do is get THROUGH it... and getting through it involves making an effort in channelling one's energies positively. As I said:- "Where is the "James Bulger foundation"? Where is the memorial for him? Where is the positivity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmy Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 "Flame away" at me if you will, but surely to God, wouldn't James' parents have done more to honour his awful death by channelling their (quite understandable) grief, in focussing on launching some sort of charitable foundation to address issues of "disaffection" (for want of a better word to describe the ennui of youth) which would hopefully avert such tragedies happening in future? (or at least give other children some positivity to build their futures uopn) It may be the "soundbites" thing with the media, but whenever they are wheeled out for the cameras, it always seems that all they have to offer is venom to direct at Thompson and Venables. Yes, what T&V did was absolutely heinous, but in directing their vitriol only in the direction of T&V, there's no closure, there's no moving on... Is that honouring their child? Is that permitting him to rest in peace? Is it actually benefiting society at large? I'm not trying to say that the Bulgers' loss is something that is easily gotten-over. You can't really get over something like that... But what you can do is get THROUGH it... and getting through it involves making an effort in channelling one's energies positively. As I said:- "Where is the "James Bulger foundation"? Where is the memorial for him? Where is the positivity? Well said I agree with this statement. Its a shame that she doesn't seem able to move on from this at all. I do realise its something she will never get over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 PT makes some good points and The Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust immediately springs to mind. I am conflicted about the phone hacking issue as ultimately it is saying that journos were/are OK to behave illegally, immorally and unethically if the person in question has also broken the law. That said, I totally understand Denise Fergus' anger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Well said I agree with this statement. Its a shame that she doesn't seem able to move on from this at all. I do realise its something she will never get over. Of course, having her child taken away, and murdered, is something Densie Fegus will carry with her to her own dying-day. It's not going to be easy to get one's head round... I'm in no way saying that his mother (who seems to be the one parent, particularly, that the media "Wheel out" periodically for the cameras) should simply wake up one day, and leap out of bed, singing "Hey-ho, it's a beautiful day, traloo-tra-ley!" People grieve in different ways and over different timescales... that's a fact. But what is also a fact, is that if you only focus on the negatives in your grief, your healing is delayed. If you channel your energies positively, then the result is much better. Is it the case, do you think, that it's more she refuses to move on, after 20 years, or, could it be that the media's acts of sweeping in and rolling her out for a news sound-bite about "what a loss she suffered", back then, doesn't let her put her grief away? I can understand the sorrow harboured for fifty years of the late Winnie Johnson, who died last august, and the hatred she felt for Hindley and Brady, as they persistently and spitefully refused to give her family the location of her son, Keith's grave, up on those bleak moors. Mrs Johnson never got closure, she never got to give her son a proper burial, and to say her goodbyes. In this, James's mother had one-over on Mrs Johnson. She had opportunities Mrs Johnson never got:- she got to say her goodbyes, she got a funeral for her son. Her son's murderers were Adults, who escaped the noose by just a fortnight. James' killers were children themselves at the time, but were tried as adults. So, once again, she had more to allow her to find closure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 PT makes some good points and The Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust immediately springs to mind. I am conflicted about the phone hacking issue as ultimately it is saying that journos were/are OK to behave illegally, immorally and unethically if the person in question has also broken the law. That said, I totally understand Denise Fergus' anger. technically it wasnt just people who broke the law tho, it was ANYBODY they could get a story about and make money criminals, murderers, celebs and even as AO said Millie Dowler the media are the ones making celebs out of murderers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 technically it wasnt just people who broke the law tho, it was ANYBODY they could get a story about and make money criminals, murderers, celebs and even as AO said Millie Dowler the media are the ones making celebs out of murderers Yes, sorry I mean that arguing that only some victims of phone hacking deserve compensation effectively introduces a two tier legal system. It's saying it's unacceptable to hack the innocent but OK to phone hack criminals. Whether we like it or not, they too have been subjected to a crime. So I agree with you in that I am not sure that I can support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 PT makes some good points and The Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust immediately springs to mind. I am conflicted about the phone hacking issue as ultimately it is saying that journos were/are OK to behave illegally, immorally and unethically if the person in question has also broken the law. That said, I totally understand Denise Fergus' anger. thanks Suffragette1 ... I agree with the conflicting thoughts on the phone hacking thing, too. T&V still had an illegal act, committed against them, which does not make it any less illegal just because they were convicted criminals. To extrapolate... Someone is a shoplifter... another random, unconnected person, ten years later, in cold blood, fires a gun at them, killing them... Does that mean, it's not murder? after all, they DID have a criminal record... or let's look at a real-life situation:- Almost 20 years ago, now, a young Sheffield woman, named Dawn Shields, was murdered, and her body hidden in the peak district, to be found, some time later.. She left behind a toddler son:- Dawn's mother, however, was not allowed to file a claim for compensation to support Dawns little boy, on his behalf, because she had convictions for prostitution. So, under the law, that child was entitled to nothing, despite his mother being murdered, by dint of the fact that she had a criminal record. Does having a record make her any less murdered? does her record give her little boy (who will now be a grown-man) his mother back? Surely whatever her social situation, it gives her family the right to be compensated for her murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 thanks Suffragette1 ... I agree with the conflicting thoughts on the phone hacking thing, too. T&V still had an illegal act, committed against them, which does not make it any less illegal just because they were convicted criminals. To extrapolate... Someone is a shoplifter... another random, unconnected person, ten years later, in cold blood, fires a gun at them, killing them... Does that mean, it's not murder? after all, they DID have a criminal record... or let's look at a real-life situation:- Almost 20 years ago, now, a young Sheffield woman, named Dawn Shields, was murdered, and her body hidden in the peak district, to be found, some time later.. She left behind a toddler son:- Dawn's mother, however, was not allowed to file a claim for compensation to support Dawns little boy, on his behalf, because she had convictions for prostitution. So, under the law, that child was entitled to nothing, despite his mother being murdered, by dint of the fact that she had a criminal record. Does having a record make her any less murdered? does her record give her little boy (who will now be a grown-man) his mother back? Surely whatever her social situation, it gives her family the right to be compensated for her murder? Agree. It has to be one law for all, whether we like it or not. A slippery slope otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.