Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 3832541)

Umm no I don't, read properly: "They thought it was funny", I didnt find it funny, they did. I was making the point that their intention was never to kill the child.

Not that that would stop you killing them. You really do seem to like the idea of being the decisive authority over who lives and dies.

Originally Posted by InOne (Post 3832583)

I meant a "good family" as in someone who is not constantly physically or psychologically aboused. Obviously there will be stresses at times, but that is part of growing up.

And I don't know? I wasn't aware that was a problem.

Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 3832619)

Sure, there are stresses in all families, but individuals do react in very different ways so I can see it would be extremely difficult to isolate a single factor that would tip the balance from merely eccentric behaviour to full blown psychosis.

I am interested in those kids who are brought up in care homes, since they have obviously not experienced "parenting" in the conventional sense, and it would be interesting to know whether there is a higher or lower percentage of paedophiles etc whose early years, or indeed whole childhood, was spent in care.

Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 3832619)

Sure, there are stresses in all families, but individuals do react in very different ways so I can see it would be extremely difficult to isolate a single factor that would tip the balance from merely eccentric behaviour to full blown psychosis.

I am interested in those kids who are brought up in care homes, since they have obviously not experienced "parenting" in the conventional sense, and it would be interesting to know whether there is a higher or lower percentage of paedophiles etc whose early years, or indeed whole childhood, was spent in care.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3832505)

Angus this is one hell of a thread you have created.lol

Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 3832632)

Yes, it's kind of taken on a life of its own, which goes to show that it is a hugely emotive and important issue to a lot of people. I'm glad it is being debated and taken seriously, whether I agree with some of the posts or not.

Originally Posted by InOne (Post 3832626)

Did 'Without Conscience' come yet?

Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 3832634)

It has, but I'm the sort of person who once I pick up a book I need to finish it, and as yet I haven't found the time to sit down and get stuck in. It might help if I could tear myself away from this forum!

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 3832534)

Cutting of someones hand is mutiliation, thats a completely inhumane and vile thing to do, and nobody in their right mind would implement such a policy.



What are you talking about, read the article again. They did it because they though it would be funny when they were high. They got caught when she showed someone the pictures, they hadnt taped him there to die.

And they were 10 years old ffs :bored:

Far from your views being the majority and intelligent, as some have said, I'd say they were rather worrying myself.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3832639)

and James Bulger was 3 weeks shy of his THIRD birthday FFS.

Originally Posted by InOne (Post 3832638)

Ah yes, it's one you won't put down. Well log off and get reading then :tongue:

Originally Posted by jedward fever (Post 3832602)

by the way your reacting your excusing there reckless behaviour that could have killed the child.

and im saying who i should think should die and that is pedophiles and serial killers.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3832639)

and James Bulger was 3 weeks shy of his THIRD birthday FFS.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3832639)

and James Bulger was 3 weeks shy of his THIRD birthday FFS.

Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 3832632)

Yes, it's kind of taken on a life of its own, which goes to show that it is a hugely emotive and important issue to a lot of people. I'm glad it is being debated and taken seriously, whether I agree with some of the posts or not.

Originally Posted by joeysteele (Post 3832719)

I am amazed how anyone can overlook that fact kazanne,also jedward you are near spot on, In one of our lectures the indicative statistics for abusers having had a 'bad' or troubled past is 6.7 out of 10. Near spot on your 70%

The troubled and bad past should not however be in any way an excuse to sexually or otherwise abuse Children or murder them.
It can be a reason but never a justification in any way to try to negate the abuse.

Originally Posted by jedward fever (Post 3832758)

bump.

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 3832772)

:laugh2:

Originally Posted by jedward fever (Post 3832774)

whats so funny about bump?

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 3832718)

No, I'm making the point that killing them would be a completely disproportionate punishment relating to the crime.



I don't see what point you are trying to make here.

Let me get one thing straight, what the two boys did to Bulger was absolutely despicable, abhorrent and disgusting, it's awful what they did to him and I am in no way trying to condone, justify or excuse Venables' and Thompson's behaviour.

But at the end of the day they were 10 years old. At that age they are young, susceptible, naive and not fully aware of the severity of their actions, even though they might have know they were wrong. The mindset they had back then is not the same as it is now, when they are adults who have gone through a process of rehabilitation, which admittedly may not have been completely effective with Venables. To hang someone for what they did when they were 10 would be completely unjust imo.

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 3832718)

No, I'm making the point that killing them would be a completely disproportionate punishment relating to the crime.



I don't see what point you are trying to make here.

Let me get one thing straight, what the two boys did to Bulger was absolutely despicable, abhorrent and disgusting, it's awful what they did to him and I am in no way trying to condone, justify or excuse Venables' and Thompson's behaviour.

But at the end of the day they were 10 years old. At that age they are young, susceptible, naive and not fully aware of the severity of their actions, even though they might have know they were wrong. The mindset they had back then is not the same as it is now, when they are adults who have gone through a process of rehabilitation, which admittedly may not have been completely effective with Venables. To hang someone for what they did when they were 10 would be completely unjust imo.

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 3832778)

I just found it funny that the thread was being bumped after only twenty minutes of inactivity.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3832900)

His name is James,NOT Bulger at least have a bit of respect .

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3832902)

Such good rehabilitation one is back where he belongs for child porn charges!no wonder people get angry over this.If people weren't so lazy and did their jobs properly then we would not need to be calling for the death penalty as people would be satiated by a life in prison sentence!

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3832903)

You seem more intersested in taking 'pops' at Jedward fever than the real subject here.

Originally Posted by kazanne (Post 3832900)

His name is James,NOT Bulger at least have a bit of respect .