Re: Jon Venables and the ugly vigilante mob : Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:10 am  

WIZEB wrote:

She probably needs her methadone hit increasing?

Is her Addiction due to an abusive childhood then?

Re: Jon Venables and the ugly vigilante mob : Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:16 am  

Rooster Booster wrote:

Is her Addiction due to an abusive childhood then?

No, but I do partially blame that on her life of prostitution.

Re: Jon Venables and the ugly vigilante mob : Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:27 am  

WIZEB wrote:

No, but I do partially blame that on her life of prostitution.

How unempathetic of you. Maybe if she murdered a two year old with a friend, she'd be worthy of your empathy?

Re: Jon Venables and the ugly vigilante mob : Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:52 am  

Rooster Booster wrote:

How unempathetic of you. Maybe if she murdered a two year old with a friend, she'd be worthy of your empathy?

No, but if arrested and convicted I would hopefully be satisfied that our legal process would serve it's due purpose.
How's about you?

Re: Jon Venables and the ugly vigilante mob : Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:02 am  

WIZEB wrote:

No, but if arrested and convicted I would hopefully be satisfied that our legal process would serve it's due purpose.
How's about you?

Indeed.

Re: Jon Venables and the ugly vigilante mob : Mon Feb 18, 2013 1:02 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

It means exactly what I have written. An oasis of common sense in a dessert of hypocritical platitudes, with no mention of vigilantism, or anything else which may upset the more delicate amongst us.

Perhaps someone less excitable will step up and defend their nimbyism.......

Common sense?
The thread is about vigilantism and you are waffling about people's daughters hooking up with Venables.
I think the excitable one is you.

The "dessert" you mention is preferable to your Smörgåsbord of irrelevance.

[DaveO]

Re: Jon Venables and the ugly vigilante mob : Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:50 pm  

kirkstaller wrote:

They committed serious crimes but let’s remember that they were only just old enough to be tried for those crimes. They were a whisker away from not being held accountable at all due to their age. That in itself means we should all exercise extreme caution when making assertions about culpability.

You have completely ignored what I wrote. All that you say above was considered and the case against them was made that they a) knew what they were doing i.e. deliberately led the victim away to be killed with that act in mind and b) knew what they were doing was wrong. How old they were doesn't alter that is what the case was built on.

How do you know?

What is your definition of victim? Was James Bulger a victim? His parents? His cousins?

I think that if you have been affected in a negative way by a crime then you are a victim. You therefore need to consider whether or not you will forgive the wrongdoer.

What crimes did Bin Lid commit that you are a victim of? Taking on the role of "proxy victim" doesn't count and in any case you can't even say he was responsible for (say) the deaths of British Soldiers in Afghanistan (that would be the Afghan Taliban and Bin Lid was holed up in Pakistan). Just what did he do that directly affected you personally?

That is a completely unrelated topic and is not relevant to this discussion. If you have an axe to grind then create a thread about US foreign policy/rules of engagement.

The taking out of an offender is unrelated to a topic about vigilantism? Really?

Re: Jon Venables and the ugly vigilante mob : Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:09 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Common sense?
The thread is about vigilantism and you are waffling about people's daughters hooking up with Venables.
I think the excitable one is you.

The "dessert" you mention is preferable to your Smörgåsbord of irrelevance.

The question was put. Yes, you would be happy to see one of your daughters with Venables, or having him as a neighbour, or no you would not.

A simple reply, from a simple man like yourself would suffice.

Kudos for spelling smorgasbord though.

Re: Jon Venables and the ugly vigilante mob : Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:30 pm  

A slight thread drift, or at least a change of tack. The point has been raised on this thread, if Venables starts dating, and moves on to perhaps a possible long term relationship, should the partner of his choice be kept in ignorance of who he really is, and is it reasonable that they should live their life with him based on official lies as to his identity? How would they feel if, say in 10 years, they found out the truth? The question is relevant because in the news today is the inquiry about a situation where just this actually happened, except the official fake identity was that of a police officer who infiltrated an activist group. Report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21629991 Reading the harrowing accounts of how learning the truth affected the women concerned, the years of their life which they can't replace that they had 'wasted' by putting their energies into a realtionship with someone who wasn't who they thought he was, where is the balance of fairness? Would it have somehow made it OK, as long as the women had never found out the truth? Or is there a difference between the state providing fake identities for officers, as opposed to for offenders?

A slight thread drift, or at least a change of tack. The point has been raised on this thread, if Venables starts dating, and moves on to perhaps a possible long term relationship, should the partner of his choice be kept in ignorance of who he really is, and is it reasonable that they should live their life with him based on official lies as to his identity? How would they feel if, say in 10 years, they found out the truth? The question is relevant because in the news today is the inquiry about a situation where just this actually happened, except the official fake identity was that of a police officer who infiltrated an activist group. Report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21629991 Reading the harrowing accounts of how learning the truth affected the women concerned, the years of their life which they can't replace that they had 'wasted' by putting their energies into a realtionship with someone who wasn't who they thought he was, where is the balance of fairness? Would it have somehow made it OK, as long as the women had never found out the truth? Or is there a difference between the state providing fake identities for officers, as opposed to for offenders?

Re: Jon Venables and the ugly vigilante mob : Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:02 pm  

I think there is a difference as police officers will always assume this identity temporarily whereas an offender would have to 'become' that new identity.

Still a very difficult one though