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

(92 Posts)
HannahLou06 Wed 13-Mar-13 20:09:16

To all mums......... DON'T let this happen! as Denise said this is BLOOD MONEY!! 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


HannahLou06 Wed 13-Mar-13 20:12:23

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

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.

MmeLindor Wed 13-Mar-13 20:18:05

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.

tribpot Wed 13-Mar-13 20:35:53

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.

Pagwatch Wed 13-Mar-13 20:37:36


LynetteScavo Thu 14-Mar-13 20:40:32

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.

IslaValargeone Thu 14-Mar-13 20:40:54

What Pag said.

IslaValargeone Thu 14-Mar-13 20:41:54

Also what trib said.

lubeybooby Thu 14-Mar-13 20:43:22

what trib said (and pag!)

and ffs stop spamming us with it.

Saychelles Thu 14-Mar-13 22:19:52

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.

Feenie Thu 14-Mar-13 22:22:22

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

tribpot Thu 14-Mar-13 22:26:17

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.

Saychelles Thu 14-Mar-13 22:33:14

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

Feenie Thu 14-Mar-13 22:35:35

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.

Saychelles Thu 14-Mar-13 22:39:04

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.

damppatchnot Thu 14-Mar-13 22:39:19

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

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.

Sunnywithshowers Thu 14-Mar-13 22:49:40

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.

Saychelles Thu 14-Mar-13 22:57:17

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.

Sunnywithshowers Thu 14-Mar-13 22:59:31

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.

Saychelles Thu 14-Mar-13 23:02:03

Sheds just a bit more light if you want to read:

Saychelles Thu 14-Mar-13 23:11:38

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.

tribpot Thu 14-Mar-13 23:12:04

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.

MrsSham Thu 14-Mar-13 23:27:55

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

Saychelles Thu 14-Mar-13 23:31:11

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.

Sunnywithshowers Thu 14-Mar-13 23:31:51

Saychelles, as far as I am aware lifelong anonymity has only been granted to 4 people: Mary Bell, Venables and Thompson, and Maxine Carr. I am advocating their protection because they are at risk of being killed by a lynch mob.

They don't forfeit their right to protection under the law because of their crimes.

Saychelles Thu 14-Mar-13 23:52:13

Thus far...Mary Bell did not have life long anonymity until after the case which is topic of discussion. Unlikely he'll ever get out but you'd be ok with Ian Huntley living anonymously in your street because he doesn't forfeit his right to protection under the "law"? I want an honest answer about how you'd feel, even if it was just a rumour. Tell me you wouldn't be deeply worried... It'd be ok though because the law says so & you've got to like it.

James Bulger did not forfeit his right to justice just because his voice was taken when he was murdered but do we call 8 years 8 months justice? I know what I think.

Look, at least your debate has been civil but we are going round in circles. Such is the individuality of thought that many people have different opinions. Net mums isn't supporting the petition, as one poster claims, by allowing a platform of debate, it's called freedom of speech & we are lucky to have all been allowed that tonight.
I'm sure there will be future cases that will test the rulings of previous trials to their very limits & as before no one really wins.
Thank you for being civil & allowing me to speak.

tribpot Thu 14-Mar-13 23:55:08

This is Mumsnet, not Net Mums. That's a different site.

Saychelles Fri 15-Mar-13 00:01:56

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

MechanicalTheatre Fri 15-Mar-13 00:10:51

Not understanding the basic facts of the law, yet still coming onto a thread to mouth off, shows a level of immaturity.

We could be like some other countries, Saudi Arabia for example, and not allow basic human rights to prisoners. Or we could be like we are and allow human rights to prisoners. I know which country I'd rather be.

Besides which, they are not even prisoners (maybe Venables still is, I can't remember.)

You could get 6 billion signatures on that list and they'd still get money. It is the law. They are as entitled to it as anyone else. You do not lose your rights when you commit a crime, except your right to freedom. And thank fuck for that, frankly.

Sunnywithshowers Fri 15-Mar-13 00:11:30

Mary Bell was granted life long anonymity because of idiots in the press who tried to track her down for revenge. They were going to out her despite the fact that she has a daughter.

I don't think it's helpful calling posters here immature.

MechanicalTheatre Fri 15-Mar-13 00:12:57

Saychelles, they were 10 when they committed the crime. As horrible as the murder was, what the hell were the courts supposed to do? Bang them up for life in squalor? What the hell good is that going to do anyone? It just brutalises people further.

It really shocks me that people can be so vengeful. It's like everyone has forgotten that you don't have to take an extreme position on every fucking thing.

wannaBe Fri 15-Mar-13 00:13:29

oh yes, let's all live in a society where justice is given out by mindless thugs who don't actually care who it is they're beating up just as long as it is someone. Let's not pretend that the kinds of vijilanti's who go around hounding criminals who have served their time (according to the legal system of this country) are actually doing it because they cared about the victims, no, they're doing it for notariety. These are the same people who hounded a paediatrician because she had the letters paed at the beginning of her title... ah yes, such fine upstanding members of society, probably the same thugs who are out beating each other up on a friday and saturday night in your local town...

The reason why life long anonymity has to be given is because of other people, not because of what they have done..

As for James Bulger's killers, actually no, I don't want to live in a society that locks up two ten year old children for the rest of their lives. Because while what they did was reprehensible, they were ten year old children. Not adults, children, and should have been tried and convicted as such.

So no, I won't be signing and I don't think mn should let this thread stand.

MechanicalTheatre Fri 15-Mar-13 00:19:14

I am actually heartened to see so many people saying that this is shit. I am so sick of reading people going on about hanging the bastards and paedos on every street corner.

I really don't know what's got into the world. I don't remember people being like this when I was growing up, everyone is so hard and cynical. And with no sense. And no idea about the law, yet they feel they have every right to go on about it.

Maybe a move to somewhere like Iran, Saudi where they mete out vigilante justice would suit them better.

Saychelles Fri 15-Mar-13 00:19:16

I haven't asked anyone to sign, I haven't mouthed off & I haven't been abusive like some. I haven't advocated revenge or vigilantism. I have expressed only my opinion which I am free to do, as all of you are & have. The comment I responded to was immature & treated as such.

Is this netmums, mumsnet or mums really don't give a fuck so long as it's not happening in my backyard?

MechanicalTheatre Fri 15-Mar-13 00:23:14

Who said anything about anyone's backyard? Of course no-one wants a paedophile living near them. But what the fuck else are we supposed to do with them? Keep them all locked up? Where? With what money?

You cannot just keep everyone in prison forever when they commit a crime. Someone has to pay for it.

MechanicalTheatre Fri 15-Mar-13 00:25:45

And I'd like to know how the law failed James Bulger. As far as I can see, society failed him when those two boys were allowed to wander the streets with him for hours.

They were given a punishment. They served it. In what way has the law failed here?

LineRunner Fri 15-Mar-13 00:28:55

Is this netmums, mumsnet or mums really don't give a fuck

That comment is pretty low.

alwayslateforwork Fri 15-Mar-13 00:30:38

Blood money?

Sensationalist twaddle.


teatrolley Fri 15-Mar-13 00:30:57

They were children who did a terrible thing. They've been punished for that. Hacking is illegal and they're as entitled to compensation as anyone else.

teatrolley Fri 15-Mar-13 00:34:21

And nobody would be comfortable with anyone who harmed a child living near them. That's why some people are granted anonymity. They have to live somewhere.

Saychelles Fri 15-Mar-13 00:34:39

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

OutragedFromLeeds Fri 15-Mar-13 00:35:56

'Is this netmums, mumsnet or mums really don't give a fuck so long as it's not happening in my backyard?'

Mumsnet. It says at the top, under the logo. HTH smile

MechanicalTheatre Fri 15-Mar-13 00:38:02

Were they paedophiles? They were ten. Let's not sensationalise the case. How is that showing any respect for the murdered child?

What are you going to give them my address for? So they can come round and be rehabilitated by me? How's that going to work? Or is it so they can paedo my kids?

Because I thought you weren't advocating violence? But that sounds pretty violent to me.

Basically, what is your solution? Because paedophiles and murderers have to live somewhere and if it has to be my street, then it's my street.

Saychelles Fri 15-Mar-13 00:38:33

Society failed James Bulger, how so? You cannot truly believe that?

Saychelles Fri 15-Mar-13 00:39:45

I didn't say they were paedophiles but you insinuate I did? I used that term to reference people you'd rather not live in your road

wannaBe Fri 15-Mar-13 00:42:15

the thing though is that by being against anonymity you are essentially advocating vijilantiism because that is what will happen if anonymity was removed.

Would I want a known paedophile living in my street? probably not, but the reality is that there are probably unknown paedophiles living in or near my street and it could be argued that the one who is known has at least been flagged by the authorities as being there, the ones most feared are the ones who haven't been caught yet, and yet we don't live our lives in constant fear that x or y next door or down the street might be a paedo.

MechanicalTheatre Fri 15-Mar-13 00:43:56

What has that got to do with anything then? Why are you talking about paedophiles on a thread about James Bulger?

Er, yeah, I truly believe society failed James Bulger. How else do you explain the however many people who walked past a wailing, bleeding toddler? How else do you explain the fact that their parents had obviously not done the best job in bringing them up? I was ten when it happened and I could not get my head around someone my age doing that. What the hell happened in their lives to make them do that?

What do you think? That they were EVIL?

OutragedFromLeeds Fri 15-Mar-13 00:47:24

The fact that two ten year olds were able to abduct and murder a toddler is society's failing.

hellsbells76 Fri 15-Mar-13 00:50:39

This case really does bring out the baying pitchforkers, doesn't it? They were ten. TEN. I don't see this level of lynchmobbery for any adult child murderer. It's just weird.

wannaBe Fri 15-Mar-13 00:50:48

of course society failed James bulger - as stated above.

Society also failed those two children - growing up in abusive homes, one of which at least was known to SS because the older brother had attempted suicide in order to be able to be taken into care. Let's not pretend that it is children with a normal upbringing who wake up one morning and decide to go out and murder a toddler with no previous siigns of any kind of issues. There will have been signs and yet who spotted them? no-one.

wannaBe Fri 15-Mar-13 00:52:44

hb yes it is - very.

We have far more prolific murderers in our society and yet who is calling for their lynching?

MechanicalTheatre Fri 15-Mar-13 00:57:31

I don't know if anyone read the case about the little girl who was murdered in Norway, also by two children. The James Bulger murder and that case have a lot of differences but also a lot of similarities - yet the children were treated with compassion, weren't prosecuted etc. Just a completely different set-up to what we have here.

And I don't see that Norway is suddenly full of marauding murderers.

wannaBe Fri 15-Mar-13 01:00:21

I vaguely remember it (would need too recall the details) but yes, entirely different and children treated completely differently in Europe - in fact afaik Britain has one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility...

hellsbells76 Fri 15-Mar-13 01:01:15

Yes I remember reading about that. They seem a lot more enlightened and civilised in Scandinavia (witness public reaction to Anders Brevjik trial: they gathered outside the courtroom and sang the song he hated. No banging on prison vans there.)

hellsbells76 Fri 15-Mar-13 01:09:17

Blake Morrison has written a lot about the Bulger case: this is quite old now but very thoughtful and worth a read.

The police established who had commited the crime and bought them to court. Due process was established and the convicted were deprived of their liberty until such point that their release was thought appropriate, bearing in mind the need for society to be protected, NOT avenged. So yes I do think the way Thompson and Venables was treated was just. I think human rights belong to all who are human. Not just some of those. If a person is able to be released from prison then they should be afforded a fresh start. That includes not having their phone hacked or their privacy invaded by baying idiots.

Saychelles Fri 15-Mar-13 08:17:49

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

Pagwatch Fri 15-Mar-13 08:25:39

Yes, I agree with Northern
However unpalatable it may be human rights apply to everyone, not everyone we like.

I also slightly object to being lectured by someone whose argument seems to be 'if you disagree with me then you either don't understand or don't care.

Delivering your message with the air of a sulky and sarcastic teenager is as rude and as immature as being deliberately pedantic.

And fwiw mumsnet is just anyone who posts here. So you, Seychelles, are as much a 'mum who doesn't give a fuck...' as I am. There is no ollection view. It's a discussion board

Ratchet the foot stamping down a notch and you might get a discussion.

Pagwatch Fri 15-Mar-13 08:26:52

Ah.. You are going. excellent teenage response.
Don't slam the door and tidy your room missy

ThePavlovianCat Fri 15-Mar-13 09:51:07

You are not entitled to your opinion - an excellent article about why you shouldn't just come on here and say "I think x" and then get narky if you can't then back it up with reasoned argument.

Saychelles Fri 15-Mar-13 13:12:51

Look on reflection I can see how I've come across & that wasn't my intention, it is a very emotive subject to me & clearly to many others. I have not & never will advocate revenge/violence/vigilantism/lynching or anything else that's been suggested. My argument was down to the rights of victims & the rights of perpetrators, which at times can be a fine one, however unfair it may seem.

Nope, I wont be signing, they were 10 years old, totally failed by society. If their phones have been hacked they deserve compensation just like everyone else.

Jayphine2013 Fri 15-Mar-13 13:35:22

Guys your lack of empathy with this as presumably you are mothers is quite saddening. What differs in this case (to that of other pyscopaths) is yes they started a bit younger than Brady and Hindley and also they got to walk free after just 8 short years. James Bulger's mother has had to watch as her baby boys murderer parades around without a care in the world (yes she has seen him in the flesh) whilst she lives in utter torment. BOTH killers to my knowledge are back in prison (Venables definately) and this was for possesing pornagraphic images of children as young as 2. If you read 'My James' by Ralph Bulger you will realise that there was a sexual element to James' murder. I'm not calling for them to face the noose, but i do believe they are dangerous to society. Also, in relation to the Norway murder with similarities; the circumstances were also very different. The two 6 year old boys (not 10) knew they had done wrong and shown genuine remorse. This was childhood play that got out of hand- not premeditated murder. The police were horrified by the lack of humanity in James' killers who laughed and 'smirked' when they talked about what they had done.

Anyway i could go on all day- with regards to the petition, James mum is fronting this campaign not just a bunch of people who want 'notoriety'. This is not a claim for a bus accident or tripping up a kerb. Why do you think their phones were hacked? Because they are talented members of society?? NO. It's because they brutally murdered her baby son. They are not famous for anything else. Hence this is a direct result of the crime they committed. Phone hacking is wrong and it is illegal- the petition states that it should go to charity rather than the criminal therefore the NOTW or the 'rag' will still pay for the crime they committed.

All the gut-wrenching details in the world doesn't alter the fact that any compensation for phone hacking is completely separate from the crime they committed.

Yes, it would be great if were given to charity. However, there is no law that says it has to be.

I am sad that Denise Fergus cannot find any peace with this. I understand why she cannot. However, anyone's desire for what they perceive to be 'justic' does not trump the law as it stands and that has to be accepted.

I won't be signing.


Jayphine2013 Fri 15-Mar-13 13:57:33

BeerTricksPotter yes NOTW committed a crime and they should pay; and yes it would be great if the money could go to charity. I'm just not a believer that criminals only notorious for their horrific crimes should be in receipt of such compensation.

Denise will probably never find peace with this and as parents i think we can understand why...although we will never (hopefully) know the true extent of such grief. I do believe if it happened to one of your children you would feel exactly the same way- this is just another slap in the face for VICTIMS who have already suffered so much.

In saying that you are right the law is the law; i can only hope that a stand would be made by the government as this could affect any one of us at any time and justice may let us down badly.

Thankyou for your compassionate reply and i respect your right not to sign. Not trying to convince just sharing a different side to the petition

NotTreadingGrapes Fri 15-Mar-13 14:04:40

Of course Denise is fronting the campaign. Any one of us in her position would probably do the same.

And that is precisely why we shouldn't be signing it.

The poor woman will never be in her right mind again. None of us would. It is very easy for us all to say that justice has been done but it would take a bigger and better person than me not to want to personally tear every shred of flesh from their bones.

Thankfully Denise Bulger (sorry, I can't remember her surname now she has remarried) is not the one who gets to decide and nor should she be.

It's just a bloody awful thing all round.

RooneyMara Fri 15-Mar-13 14:05:14

They were kids when they did it. Fucked up little kids.

No, I won't sign this petition. These men were children when they did what they did. They were tried in an adult court, served time and were released when they were judged by professionals to no longer be a threat to society. The one who turn out to be a threat has been put back in prison, as is fair.

The UK prison system is about punishment but it is also about rehabilitation, particularly where children are concerned. There is no way that a decision to release the two boys was taken lightly.

If they were victims of phone hacking, which was illegal, then they have a right to compensation, as does anyone else.

They have a right to anonymity as the press would out them and society can not be trusted to take what they see as justice into their own hands. The crime they committed was horrific, and it is understandable that emotions run high, but we have a justice system in place and for the most part it is fair, though not without flaws.

I can't imagine what Denise Fergus and her ex husband have been through. I can't imagine what their lives must benlike knowing that the people who took away their son are allowed to live relatively normal lives. It must seem very unfair to them. But the boys were caught, tried, and served out their punishment and rehabilitation, and fortunately it is not the victims who get to decide what happens to criminals. Can you imagine what society would be like if that were the case?

Pagwatch Fri 15-Mar-13 14:46:01

I completely understand the sense of revulsion that someone who committed a terrible crime is eligible to compensation. But you cannot alter the law because in the service of society it throws up results that are unpalatable.

I am finding it difficult not to dismiss as guff any posts which links an acceptance that one cannot piss about with the law because it throws up a result we don't like, with empathy.

I have plenty of empathy. That has nothing to do with this issue. Pretending it does is a cheap shot.

LineRunner Fri 15-Mar-13 15:43:33

Guys your lack of empathy with this as presumably you are mothers is quite saddening

Another low shot.

hellsbells76 Fri 15-Mar-13 18:15:53

Yes, as a mother (well, as a human being) I have plenty of empathy for Denise Bulger. I also feel it for those two lost, brutalised, fucked up children who did this awful thing. I look at DS (also 10) and his sweet, eager to please, slightly geeky innocence and I know that something went badly, badly wrong for them.

It must have gone so wrong for them to have even thought of doing what they did you are right hellsbells the whole story is so sad.

Sunnywithshowers Fri 15-Mar-13 19:09:43

They were children - 10 years old. But they were tried as adults, which is wrong.

I've always thought that James Bulger was the primary victim, but so were Venables and Thompson.

colditz Fri 15-Mar-13 19:18:32

As the mother of a ten year old, who knows lots and lots of ten year olds ... They should have gone into care. Child abuse does not cure child abuse. They were ten. They were wrong, and what they did was appalling but they were also ten.

colditz Fri 15-Mar-13 19:25:51

They were abused children themselves. My ten year old has ony just stopped believing in Santa, and when he grows up, he's going to be an astronaut. How far do you have to brutalise a child to take him from that sweet, innocent little boy to the boys who murdered James Bulger? What happened to them to make them do that? Children do NOT just kill each other for fun, it is not something that has to be beaten out of them, it is something that has to be beaten into them.

Whatever else they were, they were children, and bizarrely, that is why they are so famously hated, BECAUSE they were children. Toddlers die at the hands of adults every year, but how many of those adults can you name? How many can you even remember?

drjohnsonscat Fri 15-Mar-13 19:34:16

No sorry I won't sign. I understand why the family feel this and doubtless I would too. But that doesn't make it right. I can hardly bare to think about this case because it's so awful. My heart breaks for James and his family. It also breaks for the children those boys should have been.

LineRunner Fri 15-Mar-13 19:38:03

I have always thought that they were also famously hated because there was CCTV footage of the abduction. The footage was shown over and over again. It had a profound effect on the way the media reported the crime.

MrsSham Fri 15-Mar-13 20:23:20

The sad thing is, is that children normalise their own experiences and often replicate what they see, not all abused children kill and not all killers where abused. But I can tell you it does not take a massive much in the way of abusive, not good enough or violent or even disorganised parenting to have a detrimental affect on children.

ChompieMum Fri 15-Mar-13 21:25:29

No-one wants anonymous child killers living near them.

All of us would try to undo what happened to Jamie Bulger if we could.

But all of us too need to live in a society with laws and regulations that are consistent and treat everyone equally. Sometimes those laws will produce results that not everyone agrees with. But the alternative is chaos, persecution and subjective decisions about who is entitled to rights as we see in some other countries.

I know which I prefer.

Greensleeves Fri 15-Mar-13 21:30:46

I agree with colditz. I have a geeky, innocent, sweet 10yo boy as well. I remember my brother at his age and how different their childhoods were. My brother isn't violent but he has struggled all his life with his feelings and dealing with the effects of a shit childhood. I can see how extreme abuse could lead to a child like Thompson being badly broken at the age of 10.

They should have gone into care and been treated as severely disturbed and traumatised children. Not crazed murderers.

lougle Fri 15-Mar-13 21:38:13

No. If the NOTW broke their civil rights, they have the right to claim (not necessarily receive) compensation. Their past crime(s) are irrelevant.

FiveGoMadInDorset Fri 15-Mar-13 21:43:31

No, you need to separate what they have done to the hacking scandal.

What Greensleves said. I have a toddler, but also when James was killed my brother was the same age. What those boys did was unimaginably awful. But a 9 year old kid, you have to let them get past that. Move forward. And as several have said on this thread, if they had been adults it could already have been forgotten

I hope that now social services would have been involved and been able to help.

Jayphine2013 Fri 15-Mar-13 23:01:03

As i said before, i'm not asking you to agree- it's your right to disagree and not sign the petition. I thanked BeerTricksPotter for their dignified and compassionate reponse to the thread. The opening to the thread lacked any hint of compassion with the background to this campaign and i found it insensitive. As i said every right to oppose the campaign but you could have been more diplomatic as many replies on the thread were.

BOF Fri 15-Mar-13 23:04:40

Your name has changed? confused

Trills Fri 15-Mar-13 23:09:55

No matter what crime someone has committed or what age they were when they did it, they still have the same "human rights" as all other humans.

hellsbells76 Sat 16-Mar-13 03:10:10

I find your head-shaking comments about 'lack of empathy' 'as mothers' because people don't agree with you on this issue, pretty revolting tbh. Posters were responding to that so please don't lecture on 'empathy' and 'compassion' when you've been pretty PA and rude yourself.

squishee Sat 16-Mar-13 13:05:09

I agree with PetiteRaleuse, among others. Until civil law does not apply to ex-cons (or cons), they are as entitled to compensation as anyone else. No-one should have their phone hacked, least of all someone whose identity is protected - for whatever reason.

I don't wish to play down the boys' horrific crime. But they have served their time, and rehabilitation is an important part of the justice system IMO.

squishee Sat 16-Mar-13 13:06:05

And no, I will not sign your petition.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now