Yeah, that's true.

I can talk as someone who has lost a kid, a 16 yr old boy.

he died in a room surrounded by his new mates, all taking legal highs..sadly for my son out of all of them who fell unwell he was the one who didn't survive..

So let's say the paramedics who worked on him for 2 hours solid had body cams on for one of those tv programmes and they aired that footage without consulting me.


It's bad enough for me imagining my sons last moments, so I can't even begin to think what she goes through as she tries to sleep at night......and that's without having this ****e forced in her face now.

I do wish they had contacted her having read a bit deeper but apparently it is meant to be an unbiased view.

Until I see it can't have much of an opinion really

Marsh, as a parent the first cuddle with your new offspring is an unbreakable bond....people with kids and their opinions on this matter far out way people's without kids due to the fact they imagine their kids as they think about this case.

But why wasn't the family asked first ?? , it is out of order tbh .

Some would argue was there any need for this movie to be made? . But i haven't watched it so i don't know how it's been handled.

But Sometimes even when a crime is still recent & fresh they insist on making a movie about it and i don't understand why .

Having actual footage of your son's final moments sold to TV and film companies for profit without your consent is a completely different thing to a dramatisation of police interviews in the form of a piece of drama.

And what about parents who form no bonds? Non-parents who form major bonds with children in their life?

It's a ridiculous generalisation which was only brought into the discussion as a means of saying "well I'm right and you're wrong because I have reproduced".

The feelings I would be feeling would be exactly the same as what she is feeling.

Fair enough. I imagine even stronger if they were using actual footage of your son's death.

It's unfair you felt you had to remove it, whoever was offended is a bit silly in my opinion - if something is close to your heart it is normal to have a picture of it as an avi surely

It's not the same, you would get over the death of someone else's kid even if you did have a bond with them, you just don't get over the death of your own.


When it's someone else's kid, other people die as life goes on so they are blurred into the background. When it's your own kid I'm pretty sure it's always at the forefront as life goes on.

See, even me airing this like this helps me...but it's my choice..

I think that's the issue here, it's her grief, her families grief and they should be the ones controlling that..IMO...nobody has the right to interfere in that....

I don't think anyone is necessarily trying to control her grief

A good few are judging her grief though, what business is it of theirs on here?

You can't speak on behalf of everyone and tell them they don't or can't understand.

I'm not talking about the neighbours kids.

Again, you're generalising.

I'm saying they don't understand as much, not that they can't understand.

No one is telling you that you can't have a valid opinion on perspective on the Bulger case; this disagreement has come almost entirely as a response to a few of the "opinions" on the first page about the mother's grief that could, frankly, only have come from people without children. And did.

So what if the mum makes some money anyway..as long as she's talking about her son she's happy..and for what she's been through we should all be happy for her.

Re-read. Non parents CANNOT understand and there is no substitute for having children.

Again, it's bollocks.

Is she suing them or something?

There probably isn't.

In your opinion. Stop stating opinion as fact.

Do me a favour, without cheating, name me a few short films that have been nominated or have won the short film category, while we're at it, name me a few winners for the foreign film oscar or the hair and makeup oscar

You can't without cheating (or guessing with the latter two) because no one really cares about the short film award. It rarely gets press attention and no one pays attention to it.

I'm pretty sure the only time I can remember a short film getting any real attention before this is last year's and that was because a lot of people liked that the hollyoaks actress that made it used sign language in her speech.

I'll say it before and I'll say it again, the whole 'you can't have an opinion, you don't have kids' angle is lazy and bull****. It's purely a move to overcome an opposing opinion, not through sound argument but by denying someone their right to have their opinion and degrade their views without putting any effort into it but bull**** criteria that only happens to exclude opinions that the people who use that argument dislikes.

I'll tell that to foster carers and adopted kids. :rolleyes:

It's the principle, not the attraction the category or the film gets. If I was in the mother's position, I imagine I would also be upset that a film has been created and nominated for an Oscar without being consulted first. It wouldn't matter how many people have or want to see it. She had the right to protest and campaign to have it removed, whether it attracted more people to the film or not. It was the only way of making it clear that she did not approve of it being made and gives the director bad publicity in the process.

Short films, ain’t nobody got time for that.