James Bulger

[Guest fisherking]

Paul Mc and Gray thanks.

John.

[Guest Wordbender]

Originally posted by waterman1013:

We all lose close relatives, sometimes in horrendous circumstances, but most of us get over it, as much as one can, and try to get on with the rest of our lives.  What problem do Liverpudlians have with that.  We see the same emotional outbursts over the Hillsborough disaster.  They are dead and nothing can change that.  Life for the rest of us has to go on.  Punishment for the criminal or the for the police does not change how much we miss people who have died, does not change how we feel about them and does not change the fact that they are dead.  Let them all rest in peace and for God's sake get on with living.

Mike

 

 

Mike, from what I know of you, you're a decent bloke. So, I'll have to assume that the view above isn't reaching me in the same way as it left you, because it comes across as short-sighted, unfeeling and totally out of touch with what it's like to be grieving for someone unlawfully killed by the actions of another.

 

My family suffered such a loss when my nephew, James, was murdered in the bomb blast at Omagh. James was the little boy on the stretcher, shown on most of the front pages of the newspapers the day after the attack. My three boys were in Ireland with him at the time and, but for a couple of twists of fate, would have been on that trip to Omagh, standing with their cousin, 30 feet from the bomb car when it exploded.

 

You talk in disparaging terms about 'emotional outbursts', Mike. How else do the families express their grief, their rage and their irreplaceable loss? Would you deny them an outlet for these emotions?

 

I assure you, Mike, if, like me, you'd seen the broken bodies of the children murdered at Omagh, and felt the coffin of a beautiful 12 year-old lad biting into your shoulder as you helped carry him to his grave, and if you still couldn't sleep because of the horror show running through your mind when your brain re-runs what must have happened to someone you loved - you'd grant yourself an emotional outburst now and again.

 

And Mike, punishment of the guilty WOULD change the way my family lives after Omagh. How do you think it feels when you know that the filth who murdered your loved ones still sit down to their Christmas dinners, still attend their own family celebrations and still feel the sweet air of freedom on their faces - when their innocent victims are lying cold in the ground? Oh yes, to see the guilty properly punished would change an awful lot about how we get through our days, Mike.

 

'Get on with living', you say? Nice idea, and one which will have occurred to us, trust me. Unless you've been there, Mike, you can't possibly realise what a brutally clumsy,over-simplification that is. If only it were that easy - or even possible.

 

Mike, I hope you don't take my comments the wrong way, but what you said about 'Liverpudlians' was truly awful, especially in the context you quoted. You owe them an apology for what you said, and you owe yourself a proper, thoughtful, explanation of what you really meant to say.

 

May all victims one day find peace, justice and the belief to reclaim their lives.

 

Terry Doe

[Guest waterman1013]

Terry, fisherking and all

 

Maybe I did not phrase my question very well and for that I apologise. I was not intending to blight Liverpudlians.

 

I am half Irish and half English. The emotional response of the two nations, I think, is significantly different, yet we share so much common history and experience, for the most part. I am intrigued by the apparently different reactions to violent deaths in different parts of the world. For example in the Middle East there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth, breast beating etc. The English, generally, seem to be much more reserved in their response, although since Diana the public show of emotion has become more common, and the Irish fall somewhere between the two. Given the heavy Irish influence in the population of Liverpool, my question was intended to elicit a further understanding or debate on how we all, as individuals, would handle similar circumstances.

 

Terry I do understand something of the "troubles", as they are laughingly called. I have relatives on both sides of the fence and many have been involved over many years/generations. The family remains split but no I have never carried the coffin of a child. I did however suffer the pangs of fear for the loss of a child when the nail bomber bombed the pub in Soho, where my son and his work colleagues regularly drank. He should have been there, but fortunately was not. I did not know that until gone midnight. Yes, to some small extent, I do understand the personal emotion.

 

Perhaps the answer lies in faith. This is not a much spoken of concept in the modern day, but from an early age I was taught that God would punish. It may seem stupid to you but I actually believe that and have always gone through life looking at the "bad guys" thinking you'll get yours one day in a bigger and better way than man can ever deliver for you. If that is considered shallow then I can only apologise for my view and belief, but I did not intend to diminish the feelings of those affected by such circumstances. I am genuinely interested in what motivates such strong emotions over such a considerable length of time. I don't understand how it works at an individual or mass level. I do think that our emotional response is linked to the religious background from which we come, and I think that is worth researching.

 

I can understand that those directly affected would feel differently from the mass of the population. Is the mass response a genuine grief or is it driven by the media response to the crime?

 

I am still of the opinion that whatever has happened in the past cannot and will not be changed, but that we can all change the future. The fact that the two boys involved have been given a new chance in life, even given the appalling circumstance through which that chance came about, is something, I think, we should seek to now build on. I do not see any benefit to any of us, or them, or the Bulgers in consigning them to prison and the sort of future in society that would probably entail. If progress has been made, as it is claimed, then we should in a mature democracy be seeking to build on that progress.

 

None of us can take the pain from Jamie's mum's heart, much as we may want to. But perhaps we can start to have an informed debate in society about how such juvenile criminals should be treated in future and how we can build a society where such children get the care they need, when they need it, rather than when they have already created the sort of situation these two created.

 

I appreciate that these are emotional issues, but emotion does not make good law, viz the knee jerk reaction to Dunblane, nor does it make for good decision making in The Government or the courts. If we are to have an informed debate the emotion must be put to one side, so that the issues are not clouded by it.

 

 

Mike Heylin

[Guest loonyl]

Unfortunately,

I don't know the ins and out of this one.

 

But, something that worries me sometimes,

is,

is murder worse in the west,

when some people decide to kill someone,

 

or is murder worst in the east

when someone in the west can't be assed

and millions die.

 

To put things in perspective,

how many THOUSANDS of children are dying daily from starvation (long, slow, and painful) because the rich nations can't be bothered.

 

Every child has as much right to live as the

next.

 

This isn't trying to undermine whats gone on,

or the suffering involved.

But sometimes Apathy is the worst killer

 

Liam

[Guest Roy Meincken]

Well, this is all getting a little bit frightening in my view. I don't see how John (Fisherking) can say he didn't mean to be offensive - That John, is about as offensive (& threatening?) as I think its possible to be.

Look, this surely is a highly emotive subject with opinions being aired by some people with an "Axe to grind", ie personally or emotionally involved. I've just visited the James Bulger site and find that ever so slightly spooky too. Although everyone has a right to voice his/her opinions, the "net" allows all to do so very publicly and it's all there for us to see.

I won't neccessarily give my views on the subject of punishment/retribution here, although I hold strong views on these matters, but remember this:

Judges, are appointed to be Fair and Impartial and I believe that this was the case with Venables and Thompson.

However, politicians need to be "popular" and the Home Sec of the day was no different. Their existance depends on saying what is considered to be the popular line at that given moment in time. Do you see where I'm coming from - Think about it...

Now finally this: All our (the populace)information comes from the press - The sole purpose of newspapers very existence is to SELL NEWSPAPERS. That's worrying...

 

"In the land of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, there exist a lot of blind people who can't eat cornflakes"

 

Sorry if any of this causes offence.

Roy

[Guest waterman1013]

Liam

 

You make a very good point. All too often we have a colonial attitude to death. The BBC will lead the news with the death of two teenagers in a car somewhere in Britain and the third item will be the death of 500,000 in a natural disaster in China. I think we have our sense of priorities wrong when that can happen. Even if there are no pictures to accompany the news, the Chinese story is still more significant.

 

Mike

[Guest Wordbender]

Originally posted by Roy Meincken:

All our (the populace)information comes from the press - The sole purpose of newspapers very existence is to SELL NEWSPAPERS.

 

No, mate, some of us see things first-hand - and we can't just turn the page and divert our attention to the next headline.

 

Most victims want justice. Not cold revenge, justice. Until the right to justice is granted, you may add anger, frustration and resentment to everything else that the victims are forced to contend with every hour of every day.

 

Please don't be so surprised at emotional outbursts, irrational or otherwise, because you haven't seen how these emotions build and overflow in those who have suffered at the hands of murderers.

 

May you live your lives without ever having to know the power of those emotions.

 

Terry Doe

[Guest Roy Meincken]

OK Terry, I take your point that some of "us" have seen and continue to see life head on and in the grisly reality, warts and all. The point I'm making is that for the vast majority of us, all our news is delivered to us by newspaper editors whose SOLE responsibility is to sell more papers.

 

Now, none of this is to take anything away from the utter ghastliness of the atrocity in question, but the fact remains, and this is where some of you will start calling me a lefty, pink, bleeding-heart liberal, the fact remains that we are influenced by the paper's crap. Example: Some here have mentioned that Venables/Thompson were reported to be "Old for their age" and therefore somehow deserved to be treated as "adults" because they knew and understood the reality of their actions on this murder. Well how the heck do we know that? A.We read it in the papers. Why do we all beleive everything e read? These were no more than kids for goodness sake. 10 years old remember?

 

Some people have life's atrocities thrown in their faces and I consider myself somewhat fortunate in that I don't. However, that doesn't remove me from "Reality" does it? (or does it?)

Conversely, if one has to deal with exceptional circumstances and through one's chosen career/profession, be that Soldier/Fireman/Police officer/Pathologist etc., then surely in order to remain fully professional, one needs to develop a detachment from emotion.

 

Do you not agree, that, however distressing a particular case may be, we need to address the issue in a dispassionate manner. The law of the land must run it's course unaffected by the opinions of lay people. In this case, the two perpetrators have lost 8 years of their formative years (I know, little James lost his life), they now understand the enormity of thei actions and have to live with it. Now that they have "served their time" and irrespective of the fact that some consider that too short a time, they must be allowed to rebuild their lives. Surely, if we hounded criminals for the rest of their natural lives, this makes us no better than savages.

 

I am not, and repeat NOT, an apologist for these two or any other miscreant, but believe (more or less) in the justice system.

 

Now, someone's gonna throw back the question "what if it was your child who was so wickedly taken". Well, I realise that I wouldn't be able to formulate a rational response due to the personal nature of the situation. Sure, I'd want revenge, that's natural and in itself, not unhealthy. The people best placed to make any judgement would be the unaffected judiciary. We have to live and run our lives by the laws of the land and not the jungle.

Any considered thoughts would be welcome.

Roy

[Guest fisherking]

Originally posted by Roy Meincken:

Well, this is all getting a little bit frightening in my view.  I don't see how John (Fisherking) can say he didn't mean to be offensive - That John, is about as offensive (& threatening?) as I think its possible to be.

Look, this surely is a highly emotive subject with opinions being aired by some people with an "Axe to grind", ie personally or emotionally involved. I've just visited the James Bulger site and find that ever so slightly spooky too. Although everyone has a right to voice his/her opinions, the "net" allows all to do so very publicly and it's all there for us to see.

I won't neccessarily give my views on the subject of punishment/retribution here, although I hold strong views on these matters, but remember this:

Judges, are appointed to be Fair and Impartial and I believe that this was the case with Venables and Thompson.

However, politicians need to be "popular" and the Home Sec of the day was no different. Their existance depends on saying what is considered to be the popular line at that given moment in time. Do you see where I'm coming from - Think about it...

Now finally this: All our (the populace)information comes from the press - The sole purpose of newspapers very existence is to SELL NEWSPAPERS. That's worrying...

 

"In the land of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, there exist a lot of blind people who can't eat cornflakes"

 

Sorry if any of this causes offence.

Roy

 

Roy, have another look at my postings.I did not say I did not mean to be offensive nor did I apologise to Mike for the offensive language in the heat of the moment,so Mike belated apologies.I do not and will not say anymore on the subject ALL the papers today have printed a lot more on the subject.

John.

[Guest Wordbender]

Originally posted by Roy Meincken:

(snip) 'they now understand the enormity of thei actions and have to live with it.'

 

How do you know this, Roy? How do you know that these two people 'now understand the enormity of their actions'? Not from what you've read in the papers, I hope.

 

For what it's worth, I believe that an impossible situation was created as soon as it was decreed that these 'boys' were one day going to be released. This was a flat-out no-win, right from the start. I don't have the answer, either, but I know that I wouldn't want those two living within range of my children - and they'll be on someone's doorstep, won't they?

 

I'm no 'string 'em up' merchant, but who could honestly say that they'd sleep easy with Thompson or Venables in their area? 'Let them get on with their lives', is the plea. Sure, as long as they're not near us, thanks very much.

 

As I said, it's an impossible situation for all concerned. Who was it who said, 'Give me the boy until he is seven, and I will give you the man'? Let us pray that, in the case of James Bulger's killers - whoever said that was wrong.

 

That's enough for me on this one, and sorry if things became heavy.

 

Take It Easy,

 

Terry