My feed
Premium
Please
or
to access all these features

Petitions and activism

FOR JAMES BULGER- Stop Thompson and Venables cashing in on phone hacking

91 replies

HannahLou06 · 13/03/2013 20:09

To all mums.........t.co/V206Ret4rp DON'T let this happen! as Denise said this is BLOOD MONEY!! t.co/QhxwniS8Yv PLEASE SIGN & Share with as many people as possible to stop them claiming thousands of pounds. Lets show James Bulger we will never forget. This petition needs 100,000 signatures by may 4th 2013 before it can be discussed in Parliament.

Please help to get some Justice for little James

Hannah

OP posts:
Report
HannahLou06 · 13/03/2013 20:12

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

NorthernLurker · 13/03/2013 20:13

James Bulger is dead. Regrettably he can never be aware of anything you do. What you mean is show his mother you won't forget, by agreeing with the hounding and persecution of two men. I wouldn't want either of them in my home especially but they're entitled to privacy and JUSTICE has been served actually.

Don't confuse justice with revenge. Certainly will not be signing.

Report
MmeLindor · 13/03/2013 20:18

We did this a week or so ago.

Phone hacking is illegal. While the actions of Venables and Thompson were horrific, they are just as entitled to compensation for the invasion of their privacy as anyone else is.

Report
tribpot · 13/03/2013 20:35

Yes - I think we all fully understand Denise's motivations for this petition and sympathise with her. But this is not blood money and we do not need to sign this to demonstrate that we haven't forgotten James Bulger. None of us will ever forget him, or ever wish with anything less than all our hearts that he had not been killed.

The law cannot be used in the way you describe - it exists to offer equal protections. One way NOTW could have avoided compensating these two people is by not hacking their phones in the first place.

Report
Pagwatch · 13/03/2013 20:37

No.

Report
LynetteScavo · 14/03/2013 20:40

I love the way Pag always puts things so well.

I was trying to think of a response, but I can't better what pagwatch says.

Report
IslaValargeone · 14/03/2013 20:40

What Pag said.

Report
IslaValargeone · 14/03/2013 20:41

Also what trib said.

Report
lubeybooby · 14/03/2013 20:43

what trib said (and pag!)

and ffs stop spamming us with it.

Report
Saychelles · 14/03/2013 22:19

Justice has been served? Some people on here want to spend less time answering such threads as "would you have a baby with an ex partner" & think carefully about how justice affects us all.
8 years in a holding centre, educated to A Level standard, games consoles, pocket money & then taught how to live a lie with lifelong anonymity. And to get this they cruelly tortured & then left an innocent baby to die alone.
Justice may have been served in the eyes of the law makers but that is a very twisted view of justice. You wouldn't particularly want them living near you but how would you know? They are free to live amongst us having been granted lifelong anonymity. Because of that decision you could have had Myra Hindley or you could have Peter Sutcliffe or even Ian Huntley as a neighbour whilst you obliviously allowed them to be around your child or children.
Think very carefully before you shoot someone else's view down with such vitriolic & ill thought out responses.

Report
Feenie · 14/03/2013 22:22

All of which has nothing to do with the reasons the petition has been created, Saychelles.

Report
tribpot · 14/03/2013 22:26

The question of whether the two individuals have been sufficiently punished for the crime they did commit is not the subject of this petition. That question relates to whether they should not be compensated for having their privacy breached. They are entitled not to have their phones hacked. The NOTW chose to do so for reasons that had nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with making money for its owner.

No-one is suggesting these are not reprehensible individuals who have committed a terrible crime.

The most 'vitriolic' comment on this thread relates to the fact the OP has (whether intentionally or not) spammed the board by posting the same thing twice.

Report
Saychelles · 14/03/2013 22:33

So I am clear on this, you are happy for any criminal to receive your taxes by way of compensation for alleged phone hacking? The amount is said to be £50,000. The petit

Report
Feenie · 14/03/2013 22:35

If their phone has been hacked, then unfortunately it's what they are entitled to.

I didn't say I was happy about it, but you can't pick and choose entitlement.

Report
Saychelles · 14/03/2013 22:39

So I am clear on this, you are happy for any criminal to receive your taxes by way of compensation for alleged phone hacking? The amount is said to be £50,000. Clever lawyers manipulated the European Court of Human Rights to get the perpetrators of James's murder a lower tariff & these same lawyers now manipulate the sorry human rights act to further benefit people who should not even be walking free. I am not saying you are protecting them but they lost any rights they had when they took an innocent from this world before his 3rd birthday. And to say they are being "hounded" is quite frankly ridiculous considering the scars they have left by their actions.

Report
damppatchnot · 14/03/2013 22:39

Sorry but given what they have done they should have no rights at all

Report
mrsminiverscharlady · 14/03/2013 22:43

Why would my taxes be used to compensate criminals (or anyone else) for phone hacking? Surely the NOTW would be the ones paying compensation and as I have the good sense to not buy that rag then it won't be my money involved.

If they get compensation then blame the NOTW and anyone who has ever bought a copy to read their salacious, illegally-gained tittle tattle, not the law.

Report
Sunnywithshowers · 14/03/2013 22:49

The NOTW would pay compensation.

Despite their horrific crime, I don't believe they should be hounded for the rest of their lives. I will not be signing.

Report
Saychelles · 14/03/2013 22:57

Fair point but then your taxes were used to grant anonymity to these people & in future any criminal where the crime is deemed serious enough can apply for this precedent to be set for them. So whilst many respondents here seem to think it is ok for criminals to benefit from their notoriety beware what you are advocating here. Human rights can be manipulated to serve those that least deserve it.
We will have to agree to disagree on this but having a child myself, as I'm sure many of you do, if that phone hacking was to have revealed a killer living nextdoor to me, no matter how it was gained, I think I'd have been grateful for them revealing what policy makers don't want you to know.

Report
Sunnywithshowers · 14/03/2013 22:59

I don't have a problem with my taxes being used to grant their anonymity. There are very, very few criminals who are granted lifelong anonymity and I think it's much better than a lynch mob.

Report
Saychelles · 14/03/2013 23:11

Very few criminals are granted anonymity? How little you understand that ruling - The door has been opened for those who commit serious crimes that may threaten their safety on release to be granted anonymity - This includes rapists, paedophiles & killers. You are seriously happy for your taxes to be used for this purpose? And don't say it won't happen, we have the human rights act that allowed baby killers free in under 9 years. You are entitled to your view & I respect that but wow, I am surprised that people are advocating the protection of some seriously dangerous people.

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

tribpot · 14/03/2013 23:12

But the subject of whether the taxes spent on securing their anonymity was justified is also not the subject of this petition. You may think the NOTW was justified in hacking their phones but the law disagrees. The protection measures which are put in place for those who may pose a threat to children is also not the subject of the petition.

The criminals are not benefiting from their notoriety (the term 'notorious criminal' was used on the other thread as well as if there was a commonly-understood definition of it). Their privacy was breached as were many other people's. The law was broken. They are all entitled to compensation as a result. They have equal protection under the law.

Report
MrsSham · 14/03/2013 23:27

I think mumsnet should not support such a petition and I'm shocked this has been allowed to be posted on here.

Report
Saychelles · 14/03/2013 23:31

The points I raise may not be pertinent to the petition but they all point to it & the fact that the law has continually failed James Bulger & many others whilst protecting the so called rights of the perpetrators. The criminals are benefitting from their notoriety or are we to seriously believe had they gone about a normal life their phones would still have been hacked? Clever lawyers paid to do what they do & use Human Rights Act to benefit however twisted an argument. Today Mr Cameron backed down on some of the recommendations of the Levenson enquiry, so if you think we know all the facts of phone hacking or in fact those in power want us to know the full story, it's perhaps time to think again. People in response keep using this word "the law" which now means so many different things to us all.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.