AIBU to not understand why Ian Brady is such big news?(49 Posts)
Why is he in the news constantly?
Surely the best thing to do is ignore the man, he will have access to the tv where he is , so will love he's being talked about on the news.
Why are the broadcasters trying to turn him into some sort of 'infamous villian'
Is it so we remember the first amous british childkillers with awe?
I just don't get it? If the guy wants to go on hunger strike let him and stop giving him more attention
venomous child killing CUNT get him off my TV and I hope he dies soon
fucking waste of air, waste of space hope he DIES
as you can tell, I have strong negative feeling !!!
Why are any criminals given air time? I guess it counts as newsworthy and in the public interest, but personally I am not in slightest bit interested in what some low life scumbag has to say (unless of course he chose to apologise unreservedly and tell the families where he buried their children, but I suspect that won't be forthcoming)
I do understand the interest to an extent, but I agree that the media really shouldn't give him the attention he wants but really doesn't deserve. I haven't read detailed reports but what I caught on the radio about it earlier made it sound like he was revelling in it.
I am also utterly disgusted by the pretty much glorification of him in the media.
He should not be reported on whatsoever, it's basically giving him a platform to spread his vileness.
Well I think the reason this case is happening is basically the same reason why we would intervene to get compulsory treatment to stop an anorexic child starving themselves to death, or an OAP with dementia who was refusing to eat - because we are a civilised society and we care for those who are mentally ill and cannot care for themselves and make sound decisions - regardless of who they are and what they have done.
yes his crimes were horrendous, but if we are going to decide who can and cannot starve themselves to death, where do you draw the line and who would make the decisions?
He is trying to control the manner of his death and that shouldn't be allowed.
He shouldn't be given any air time or be in the newspapers or news. He can appeal that he isn't insane. We don't have to listen to the evil bastard on the news.
But phantomnamechanger, although I agree with your point, the case could happen without the media providing us with so much in-depth coverage of it. I just feel very uncomfortable with the idea that he is thriving on his 'celebrity' (for want of a better word), when he has caused so much pain to so many people.
Any power this creature had disappeared when Winnie Johnson died a brokenhearted mother. Here's hoping he lives for many many many more pain filled years. I don't want to hear any more about him.
I think there is a public interest in how the end of life for prisoners is managed. And I think it is right that the incarcerated, no matter how notorious, have proper access to MH tribunals and all other checks and balances for what treatment they receive.
I do question why the media are reporting to the extent and in the manner which they have closed so to do.
but phantomnamechanger he is not refusing food without knowledge of what it will lead to. He says he's on a hunger strike , yet eats toast every morning?
Surely it's a protest , a look at me thing, I want to be back in the news
What Brady did left a scar on the whole country but particularly on greater Manchester. He only just avoided the death penalty and many see his conviction as a turning point in the justice system in this country. His crimes have haunted me ever since I found out about them and I can't bring myself to watch or read anything about the most horrific of cases. But the man clearly is mentally ill. I don't know what I think tbh - on the one hand I think of him as pure evil and at the same time I wonder if he has any idea about the sheer scale of what he did?
Because it is an important issue about what the state can do with prisoners.
He's classified as mentally ill. He wants to change that diagnosis and be transferred to a conventional high security prison.
No matter what you think of him, everyone, including prisoners, has to have the right to challenge medical diagnoses. And society must know what we do with prisoners. Societies that don't are those places in the world where people just disappear.
Maybe you think that's what should happen to Ian Brady. The problem with that is that one day they'll disappear someone you do care about. It's happened to millions of people.
He's using the hearing as a platform for his views, but you can't avoid that. If you don't like hearing about it, don't read it, but you can't say that it shouldn't be reported.
I don't see why it's so prominent in the media either, why do we have to know that he wants to starve to death and is being force fed? Why can't he just live the rest of his sorry life without media attention and maybe a short news article to let us know when he is dead.
I think actually the general public have a very real morbid curiosity about people such as this. There is a NEED to know whether he is mad or bad, if you see what I mean.
What about all the details that emerged in the Bridger case? The Philpotts fire? The Tia Sharpe case? and anything else found distressing - should all that be hushed up too?
I know this is different as we are not now talking about dealing with a recent crime and sentencing, but again, where do you draw the line about what is and what is not in the public interest? He will remain a high profile criminal till he dies. And interestingly on this thread there are already both extremes - those who want him to be allowed to starve himself to death asap and those who wnat him to live many more years in punishment for his crimes.
someone should just hand him 200 paracetemol and a bottle of water. if he wants to kill himself let him get on with it.
Sorry if that sounds harsh
I agree. He's still making headlines, top news stories, getting the attention he craves.
He should be ignored and/or ridiculed.
Report it in law journals/psychology journals sure, but not on tv news all the bloody time.
No soda that doesn't sound harsh, sounds silly because the person who did that would then be tried for murder, wouldn't they?
I can't believe people on this thread would prefer not to be told the full story. Is that really what you want? Because I'm pretty sure that arrangement will suit people who do wrong just fine.
limitedperidonly would they be done for murder?
Surely if he wants to kill himself, and declares himself sane enough to make that decision, then we should just give him the tools to carry out his sane and self made decision
Well, I turn off the radio, news, whenever I hear the name so I don't know the latest story.
Yes, tell the story, but no to the headlines, putting it first on the Tv news the sensationalism etc. is there really nothing more interesting going on in the world than the thoughts of that twat?
Lots of people with terminal illnesses go to court for the right to assisted suicide. No one's got it yet. Anyone who helps someone to die can be tried for murder and probably will.
Also, society has decreed that as punishment for his crimes he will spend the rest of his life in a secure psychiatric hospital. Who is Ian Brady to decide that he doesn't to want to do that? I thought people on this thread were against giving him what he wants.
Hope he lives a long miserable life waiting to die which he apparently wants but shut away from attention. best is if he gets passed as sane and sent to prison and still force fed.
He is in the news so much because he is challenging his current sentence. He wants to be sent to an ordinary prison instead of being currently incarcerated in a mental hospital (Broadmoor, I think).
I think it's a decision that raises all sorts of important questions that we as a society should be able to think about and should be raised in the open. Far more worthy of news time than certain crime stories which seem to be of merely prurient interest.
Oh, i do wish he'd fuck off and die.
The media have given him far too much attention.
I agree with YourMa. If dying is what he really wants to do (although he crows about being skilled in psychology so he could just be playing games) then keep him alive to suffer. If he has a heart attack or complications with cancer or something, resuscitate him as many times as possible, give him no dignity in it.
The way he is trying to make himself some kind of anti-hero is just revolting.
I did read suggestions to bury him on Saddleworth Moor - please, keep him away from those poor children! They weren't safe in life, let them be safe from him in death.
He seems very manipulative from the media reports.
He should continue to be fed and live out his sentence until his natural death, hopefully in great misery
For me the real issue is that Keith Bennett is still missing.
The family believe they know the area he is in but cannot persuade GMP to resume the search despite receiving new information from David Smith shortly before he died.
Keith's family desperately need support to help him be found. If any of you are interested in hearing more, including their views on the tribunal or signing their petition please visit Keith's brother's website www.searchingforkeith.com
as mentioned - there is still one body missing and that is Brady's power.
this case is before my time but it is etched on the consciousness of all who remember it, which is why it is news.
This man has made "news" for my entire life.
His crimes were truly horrific, my mother would tell you of the effect it had on the nation at the time. As a truly peaceful woman, she once told me she'd like to have seen him hang.
But that didn't happen. He is a psychopath and should remain in a high security mental institution until the last breath leaves his odious body, and his soul goes straight to hell. He must never be given the luxury of expediting that end. He must not have any power.
It infuriates me that his trial is reported, but I accept that must be so to facilitate the free society in which we live.
But I fervently believe that the information should be straight-fact reported as a non anywhere near headline article.
Remember this is a man that tortured five kids. Stole them, hurt them, raped them, killed them.
And taped their cries.
It is all a power trip for him. He revels in the attention. Don't forget the debacle over the supposed letter last year: to me that was an attempt to inflict more misery on Keith Bennett's family.
He should be starved of the oxygen of publicity.
Personally speaking I think he needs to remain exactly where he is. Love the fact that he is saying he manipulated and acted his mental illness. If so then he is in a misery of his own making. Oh dear, how sad, never mind!
I set far more store by the mental health team's opinion though which suggests he is a Paranoid Schizophrenic with a serious personality disorder
Who cares anything about what he wants, or what he is entitled to. He has totally no right whatsoever to make a decision on which is the best place for him to serve his sentence. The idea is beyond ridiculous. And I hadn't really thought about how he is loving being a VIP and all the press attention but I think that is probably true.
He is an infamous villain, OP, don't know why you wouldn't think he is?
And he's in the news because this raises an ethical issue which does need to be debated.
I suspect those of you who can't be bothered with it are actually too young to remember when it all happened, and how horrific the crimes were.
The point is he is a prisoner serving a scented e so he should not be allowed to die as he wishes. It's about stopping him doing what he wants to do. It's news because people read/ watch it.
I remember.I can never hear The Little Drummer Boy without remembering the tape of them torturing Lesley Anne Downey while that carol played and a little girl begged for her Mum.
Brady should have been hanged at the time but now he has no right to choose anything at all.As far as I am concerned he sacrificed his humanity to service his evil perversions.
An ethical issue BIWI?
I imagine there are lots of prisoners on hunger strike or whatever to end there on lives but they are not in the daily news
Does he deserve an ethical debate around him ..no...he should be treated with the same amount of compassion as anyone else but he really does not deserve headline coverage
also does no one else remember Bobby Sands?
That's not true or fair Biwi - he was on the front of the sun and the mirror again today. Totally unnecessary.
We know that he and others like him crave noteriety- let's not give it to them. the next generation need to hear the name of Keith Bennett and his mother not Ian Brady.
I remember Bobby Sands soda. What's your point?
It has been acknowledged by Margaret Thatcher's ministers that it was a mistake in the long run to escalate the argument over whether IRA inmates should be treated as political prisoners. She was being told this at the time. The British government ended up backing down over it in a typical fudge.
However, though I think it was tactically foolish, I do understand her point of view.
I don't see the connection between an argument for political status and a tribunal to decide whether a prisoner has received the correct diagnosis.
Unless you're saying that neither of them should receive the oxygen of publicity, which is a bit of a dangerous thing to say IMO
To answer directly - why - because the moors murders were such a huge, notorious case when they happened. Because of the crime and because the death penalty had recently been abolished.
People alive at the time, who either thought he should have been hanged, or had argued against the death penalty, have a strong interest in exactly what 'life' means, in his case. That includes his attempt to foreshorten his sentence via suicide.
In the same way as Jack the Ripper and the Yorkshire Ripper but even more so because the victims were children, the case was known about by everybody and the serial nature of the crimes created a climate of fear. It's one of those events that is seared into the brain of everyone alive at the time and becomes part of their life and times, so there is an ongoing interest.
Whether there should be so much press coverage is a different question. It's clear he is revelling in it and loves his notoriety and the control he maintains. Perhaps coverage 'should' be limited to serious discursive articles on the inside pages of the broadsheets. That's not how people consume news though. Rather the way to make money as a provider of news media that the public gets what the public wants - in the format it chooses to consume most.
So, as with all 'distasteful' front page coverage, if everyone agreed with you, they wouldn't buy the papers and it would soon stop. They don't. They want it. Therefore your argument is with 'the public' not with commercial organisations who are merely providing what is desired.
Yes, it's about ethics. Someone who was not sentenced to death, given the changes in the law re the death penalty. Someone who has been given a life sentence (to mean life) on the basis of his mental health - i.e. insanity. Someone who has been on (supposed) long-term hunger strike, who wants the right to starve himself to death.
Should we as a civilised society allow him the right to starve himself, or should we insist that we continue to force-feed him? If he gets his wish, he is not serving the sentence that has been handed down to him. Yet, if he can prove that he is not insane, there are no grounds for not sending him to a normal prison.
Whether you like it or not, these are important ethical issues that have to be debated. The ethical debate isn't actually about Ian Brady. It's about the issues that his case raises.
Other prisoners who may be on hunger strike aren't involved in quite the same complicated situations.
Thisisaeuphemism - why should the next generations not hear his name? They need to know about the horrific crimes that he committed! And it's not a mutually exclusive thing - his victims can be remembered at the same time.
The ethical issues are indeed important and news worthy.
Under the circumstances however, i feel news coverage of this case should have been restricted as much as is possible to covering the legal and ethical debate with as much avoidance of showing sketches and quotes from IB as possible.
The 'circumstances' being that IB is fully aware of his power over the media, and how to manipulate it, and does indeed revel in the publicity, It is quite obvious he uses his chance to speak publicly to inflict more pain on who ever may be hurt by his comments. His main target from his prison room for years has been Keith Bennett's mother. Spending years in the knowledge that he knew where her sons body lay and she didn't was a thing of pleasure for him. He literally toyed with her.
Now this trial. He should have his legal rights. But should not be given a public voice.
You know, this is the first time since his trial, I think I'm right in saying, that he has actually been seen! It doesn't make any difference if he's shown on telly or not. He is so notorious that his case and his protest will always make the front pages.
Does anyone know why the mental health tribunal was made public, that's unheard of isn't it?
obviously should be reported, it is a mattee of public interest, but why give him a platform?
I think it is a waste of tax payer money fucking £250,000 this has estimated cost.
He lost all his Human rights imo when he tortured and murder those 5 innocent children. Keep the sick twisted freak where he is and put an injunction on the media that he cant be named.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
YANBU, he's a horrible murderer and shouldn't be given air time or air AT ALL!. At least for the victims families and friends stop mentioning him. He shouldn't be allowed rights to go to appeals and such like, to me the only thing everyone should get (no matter how henous their crime) is a fair trial, after that get rid!. He's a burden.
Because the law applies to everyone including laws for people's own protection and laws allowing decisions to be challenged in court. I wouldn't want to live in a society where this isn't the case tbh and want the media to some a light on this as much add possible.
Doesn't mean I don't think his crimes are utterly repulsive and that he deserves to suffer, just that I think that protecting my own and wider society's morals is more important than he is and that it isn't clear cut so the legal system her to consider it and the media shine a light on it.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.