Liverpool FC Forum

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:26 am

They did terrible things and deserve to pay the consequence but child execution is archaic and immoral.

Children do bad things, awful things sometimes. But time and time again they are a product of their surroundings. Children nowadays are immune to violence. Numerous studies have shown that television, films (in this case that Chucky film) and music make children insensitive to the repercussions of their actions.

by **66-1112520797** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:30 am

It only seemed like yesterday when this tragic event took place. Truly disturbing to say the least, I cannot still to this day grasp the concept that two ten year old boys carried out this evil crime. The poor baby died of horrific injuries, what a disturbing way to die.

My thoughts go out to the Bulger family.

RIP James.

by **LFC2007** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:42 pm

peewee wrote:if any of you can say that as a 10 year old you knew the full extent of all your actions then you are lying, as a 10 year old some kid hit me and my mum told me to hit him back so i leathered him with a cricket bat, obviously not fully aware of the consequences as I had no real concept of killing someone, it seems some of you are prepared to think these kids had the mindset and knowledge of an adult, when in reality they were a pair of idiots with no real grasp of anything. I could easily have killed the other kid, just like when some of you have a fight, I don't think you actually realise how easy it is to kill someone, just one blow can do it, but hey you are still prepared to throw punches around, and you are adults.

did they know they were committing murder? I don't think so, I think they were a pair of bullies who went too far without realising the consequences of their actions.

I think we realise that at 10 years old they clearly did not have the level of understanding that an adult would have - obviously. However, at 10 years old you know that beating a toddler persistently over a sustained period, placing batteries in their mouth and laying them on a train track once dead is not just wrong it is sick and evil. I also think their plan to lure the child away and the persistence they showed heightens the level of intent. It was prolonged, sick and more calculated than something you would expect from a 10 year old. This wasn't a mistake, you don't accidentally lure a child away and beat him to death gradually by mistake. This was not manslaughter, this was murder i.e. the level of intent was sufficient enough for murder. Which in law means the intent to cause GBH.

Did they know they were committing murder? Do you not think that beating a toddler persistently over a prolonged period and laying them on a train track, whilst covering their bleeding head with bricks sufficient to think that they were aware of what they were doing? I think it is. At 10 years old you know that killing someone is wrong, you talk about one blow being enough, this wasn't one blow, this was persistent, sick and evil. The intent was there, the act was there, the punishment was not there to match.

by **112-1077774096** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:47 pm

again mate, i will point out that they were both educationally subnormal, so its easy to look at it through your own eyes with your own knowledge.

and again i will say that i have no doubt they knew they were doing wrong, but i dont think the realised how wrong it was

by **LFC2007** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:47 pm

Again, I will point out that it doesn't take a genius to work out that beating a toddler to death is evil and wrong. They were clever enough to play truant, shoplift and not get caught and lure a child from under his mother's nose.

It doesn't require an in depth knowledge of the English legal system in order to work out 'how wrong' the act they were committing was. It wasn't one strike to the head, it was the systematic mutilation of a child. I think they realised exactly 'how wrong' what they were doing was, and even if slightly less than what an adult would realise, they were fully aware that beating a child PERSISTENTLY until they were mutilated was entirely wrong.

Had it been one strike to the head on a whim of anger then you may have a case, but the fact that it was a systematic mutilation suggests strongly otherwise.

by **red37** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:28 pm

I for one feel there is no need whatsoever for the 'explicit, gratuitous' nature of this terrible, tragic incident to be aired so freely as you seem able to do LFC2007. For all we know a relative/friend...whatever, could be perusing this site. And i would be deeply upset to feel they were painfully reminded of it in such a casual, nonchalant and perversely inquisitive manner. The discussion, i was led to believe was about the perpetrators of this vicious and wicked act and their current whereabouts/activities. And NOT the finer points of HOW the poor little man lost his life. Have a little sensitivity man! - FFS!

by **LFC2007** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:03 pm

red37 wrote:I for one feel there is no need whatsoever for the 'explicit, gratuitous' nature of this terrible, tragic incident to be aired so freely as you seem able to do LFC2007. For all we know a relative/friend...whatever, could be perusing this site. And i would be deeply upset to feel they were painfully reminded of it in such a casual, nonchalant and perversely inquisitive manner. The discussion, i was led to believe was about the perpetrators of this vicious and wicked act and their current whereabouts/activities. And NOT the finer points of HOW the poor little man lost his life. Have a little sensitivity man! - FFS!

So, I'm not allowed to state my opinions and yet others are allowed to do so without hassle and are allowed to post links to sites that give a much more detailed insight into the incident. I am putting my point across, have you got a problem with that mate? And to say I'm doing it in a casual and nonchalant way is pathetic. The boy was mutilated, he was persistently beaten - most news reports at the time even detailed that - but you single out me just because you dislike me, it's a joke. And I'm sure the relatives/friends have already viewed news reports that go into much more detail than ANYTHING I have ever stated in this thread. It's just another typical case of had someone else said what I had, there would be no opposition, but because I give my views on the perpetrators there is opposition straight away. Peewee gives FAR more graphic details of child murderers, but when I mention in the Bulger case that he was beaten or mutilated I get pounced upon. Typical of this forum.

by **dawson99** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:06 pm

red37 wrote:I for one feel there is no need whatsoever for the 'explicit, gratuitous' nature of this terrible, tragic incident to be aired so freely as you seem able to do LFC2007. For all we know a relative/friend...whatever, could be perusing this site. And i would be deeply upset to feel they were painfully reminded of it in such a casual, nonchalant and perversely inquisitive manner. The discussion, i was led to believe was about the perpetrators of this vicious and wicked act and their current whereabouts/activities. And NOT the finer points of HOW the poor little man lost his life. Have a little sensitivity man! - FFS!

but where would it stop? there is a friend relative something of evberything bad that happens, but things need to be disucssed.

As for this subject... i dunno. they were 10, so maybe deserve a2nd chance? but the victim had no second chance.

its all way too complex and much rmoe going on than any of us will ever understand.

No matter where the 2 are now, they will live with what they did forever. i couldnt work out what they were thinking, no sane person could.

but i do think that life for a 10 year old is harsh, but what is the psycho analysis or whatever, we dont know.

some things are best left to logic and not heart tho, as bad as that sounds, u have to be discopnnected to make desicions like that...

f*cking horrible stuff tho

by **daxy1** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:19 pm

i had a 3 year old little boy who lived with us he got took away from his mum
she had beat the little one with a hammer he was the funniest most pleasent kid we have had brought to us and has turned out to be a great kid.
the things that happen to kids that are brought to us the things they have gone through
it makes me hurt so bad it makes me want to hurt the parents for putting the kids through what they do
i have 3 kids with me now 2 boys and 1 girl all under 5 all of them have been physicaly abused and yet they come to us hugging us kissing us and call us mum and dad and have learnt to trust us 100% all 3 of these are up for adoption so they can go to a home they deserve away from abuse!

i couldnt imagine being james bulgers parents what they have gone through R.I.P james

by **red37** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:58 pm

LFC2007 wrote:
red37 wrote:I for one feel there is no need whatsoever for the 'explicit, gratuitous' nature of this terrible, tragic incident to be aired so freely as you seem able to do LFC2007. For all we know a relative/friend...whatever, could be perusing this site. And i would be deeply upset to feel they were painfully reminded of it in such a casual, nonchalant and perversely inquisitive manner. The discussion, i was led to believe was about the perpetrators of this vicious and wicked act and their current whereabouts/activities. And NOT the finer points of HOW the poor little man lost his life. Have a little sensitivity man! - FFS!

So, I'm not allowed to state my opinions and yet others are allowed to do so without hassle and are allowed to post links to sites that give a much more detailed insight into the incident. I am putting my point across, have you got a problem with that mate? And to say I'm doing it in a casual and nonchalant way is pathetic. The boy was mutilated, he was persistently beaten - most news reports at the time even detailed that - but you single out me just because you dislike me, it's a joke. And I'm sure the relatives/friends have already viewed news reports that go into much more detail than ANYTHING I have ever stated in this thread. It's just another typical case of had someone else said what I had, there would be no opposition, but because I give my views on the perpetrators there is opposition straight away. Peewee gives FAR more graphic details of child murderers, but when I mention in the Bulger case that he was beaten or mutilated I get pounced upon. Typical of this forum.

No, you used intentionally graphic descriptions of James suffering in an attempt to augment your own argument against the reply's of others, in some veiled attempt to gain the upper hand/superiority for whatever reason..I see that as a bizarre tactic to use, for the sake of (again) having the definitive word during a debate. Can you not relate to that? Dont you see where i might be coming from? There simply isn't any need to, where a modicum of respect would best be adopted.

but you single out me just because you dislike me, it's a joke.

I have highlighted your input because there are certain 'details' within it that are already common knowledge to those who have a grasp of the history of this case. No need at all in my book for elaboration on the 'juicy' bits. Anyone compassionate enough for the plight of those involved could work that one out. Not least the rest of us with toddlers who simply cannot bear to be reminded of the terrible way in which that poor little fella was brutally murdered.

A highly emotive subject at the best of times. Far too painful to bastardize for the sake of assuming the mantle of 'best mass-debater' on every subject under the sun.

Peewee was a bizzie once...a job that the devil himself wouldn't relish. The only other profession outside the legal system, that would nurture as much intrigue as that, you purport to display (by the nature of your questions/insights) is in the press...a hack, angling for a decent scoop.

Fwiw, your comments otherwise are presented in a fair and cohesive way...the issue ive taken you to task with, is in the choice of HOW you've gone about using some of those gruesome facts in order to embellish your own perceived wisdom in matters that should preclude ANY of us to treat with such a clinical, matter-of-fact lack of humility.

by **LFC2007** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:06 pm

red37 wrote:No, you used intentionally graphic descriptions of James suffering in an attempt to augment your own argument against the reply's of others, in some veiled attempt to gain the upper hand/superiority for whatever reason..I see that as a bizarre tactic to use, for the sake of (again) having the definitive word during a debate. Can you not relate to that? Dont you see where i might be coming from? There simply isn't any need to, where a modicum of respect would best be adopted.

but you single out me just because you dislike me, it's a joke.

I have highlighted your input because there are certain 'details' within it that are already common knowledge to those who have a grasp of the history of this case. No need at all in my book for elaboration on the 'juicy' bits. Anyone compassionate enough for the plight of those involved could work that one out. Not least the rest of us with toddlers who simply cannot bear to be reminded of the terrible way in which that poor little fella was brutally murdered.

A highly emotive subject at the best of times. Far too painful to bastardize for the sake of assuming the mantle of 'best mass-debater' on every subject under the sun.

Peewee was a bizzie once...a job that the devil himself wouldn't relish. The only other profession outside the legal system, that would nurture as much intrigue as that, you purport to display (by the nature of your questions/insights) is in the press...a hack, angling for a decent scoop.

Fwiw, your comments otherwise are presented in a fair and cohesive way...the issue ive taken you to task with, is in the choice of HOW you've gone about using some of those gruesome facts in order to embellish your own perceived wisdom in matters that should preclude ANY of us to treat with such a clinical, matter-of-fact lack of humility.

No, I know why I used it since I am the one who wrote it, I used the details of what happened to get my point across with regards to the level of intent shown by the perpetrators. They are facts that were contained within any news report concerning the incident at the time, in fact my description was far less graphic than those. The systematic and brutal nature of the crime reflects on the perpetrators as having a greater degree of intent than Peewee had suggested, and had you read the discussion correctly you would have seen that. My comments were not overly graphic in any case. Veiled attempt to gain superiority? You're coming across as some strange bitter and frankly pathetic person, I was getting my point across using the very basic facts. FAR more graphic and explicit content is contained within the links posted by other members, and is Peewee saying how a young child was scalded on a cooker not even more graphic? I think it is, but since you are a very bitter person you choose to pounce on my viewpoint, which I find pathetic. Why don't you write a similar post full of vitriol to Peewee explaining the same then. My own perceived wisdom? Honestly get off your high feckin horse and be realistic for once. I am not using the detail to embellish anything, I used it to present my point which was in relation to the matter of 'intent'.

by **dawson99** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:11 pm

come on people, bigger picture here.

the question is that do you jail a child of 10 for their entire life for something like this. This sort of case is unpresidented and emotions cant come into it.

LFC has a certain way of putting his way across that isnt to everyones palette but he does give reasons for all his opinions.

My opinion? i dunno. not got kids, never want kids. stuff about animals being hurt affects me more than this, doesnt make me any mroe callous, thats just what i know.

by **account deleted by request** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:19 pm

LFC has a certain way of putting his way across that isnt to everyones palette but he does give reasons for all his opinions.

but you single out me just because you dislike me,

Everyone who disagrees with one of his posts either doesn't like him, is a member of a clique, has a vendetta against him or bears a grudge. Its just becoming a joke.

by **kunilson** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:19 pm

hmm i was angry after i read that full report for the first time, and saw no reason why the boys should not be locked up and the key thrown away...

now after a while to think. i feel the same way.
maybe give them time outside with ankle bracelet or something and see how they get on, but never out of the laws eyes, and only IF some kind of rehabilitation was attempted while they were locked up. otherwise whats the point? cant just hope they learnt their lesson all on their own, and if the "kids" were that fu.cked up to do something like that in the first place the only way id accept the idea of them on the streets and under strict conditions is if they have been seen to by professionals.
of course that would mean more money spent...if its not worth the hassle lock em up for good.

by **red37** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:33 pm

LFC2007 - for the record (who's exactly i couldn't care less about) I don't dislike you at all - this is the internet, you havn't done anything to me personally. The odd 'insult' im big and ugly enough to let go. But iam focussing some of my attention on you and your persistant desire to turn nigh on every thread into a bumper edition of 'Question Time' - you're like a thing 'possessed'. You did the same thing with Stu, who now you laughably mock as your 'nemesis'..even though he remains in the shadowy background.

Yet, in another thread you are quite at liberty to distinguish "Paranormal from Paranoia'. I believe the two subjects have planted themselves into your psyche and are now wreaking havoc with your outward sensibilities.

Tell me, what exactly is it that you are afraid of?

Liverpool FC Forum

James bulger killers

Who is online