How about one on how yorkshire 'men' behave?

But they weren't older, they were 10; they were children. Ramruma

I am aware of that....which is why I do not think their punishment was sufficient

This was a very difficult one

I don't think the age of his murderers made a lot of difference to Jamie Bolger myself.

There is a time limit as to when you have to declare a crime.
Not sure if it covers all crimes but some are deemed to be spent and need not be declared.

Spot on PP but I doubt they were advertised as a sympathetic look at the Boston Marathon Bombers or a sympathetic look at the Munich Murderers.

I do want these two, ever to forget what they did. I think we are offering them too much protection.
They do not deserve it. Society is under no obligation to protect them as far as I can see.

Spot on Ebul. I think that if something did happen to them it would be as a consequence of their actions alone.
Mary Bell was another given the same protection.

In protecting them with new identities there is a fair chance that Venables could meet a woman with children and move in with them without the mother having a clue that a murderer with two convictions for kiddie porn was around her children, that cannot be right.

I take your point pp..

Would anybody murder them..not likely, they would ruin their own lives

As for GBH..people often say this, they don't always do it


Its the internet we disagree on pp...fair enough

@Saddo
Wherever they are located they will likely be near children.
Surely a parent has the right to know when a paedophile is a neighbour.
No feck everyone elses rights and protect them.
Obviously their safety comes before innocent children.

i will say it again; one of them JV is now back in jail for having pics of naked children - amongst other things. He had his chance of 'redemption' & peed on every do-gooder who listened

My slightly icky thing with all this is the mum. Maybe you don't see it as much if you're not from round here but if she was in a pub quiz picture round in Liverpool everyone would get her. She's never off the telly or out the papers. She had her own book out about it all last year. I always wonder if it's guilt at him being taken when out with her but she just won't allow it to drop.

Went looking for that after reading Baps comment. Missed it first time round but what a crass thing to say PP.
Shameful in the extreme to suggest that she should let it drop. That beggars belief.
This woman will be in pain every day for the rest of her life.

Yep, hear,hear Akabula and Baphornet
More looney left logic on display as referenced to in my opening post

Not sure that treating children differently from adults is a loony left idea.

Aiui the film in question is only half an hour long and mainly covers the police interviews.

And it is Bulger not Bolger.

Pop, we have all been children on here believe it or not, young children try to run off from their parents each and every day and the parents go chasing after them, you more than likely have done this yourself when you were a child but were found safely.
This case the child got away from the parent in a busy packed shopping centre, it happens.
Have you every heard announcements over the tannoy when out of lost children found please go to reception or contact the nearest member of staff etc. etc.?
Mrs. Bulger didn't want this subject of her loss made into a film, if she did she would have done so herself years ago, as you seem to think she craves attention.
Mrs. Bulger was not consulted about or asked for permission to have a film made about her son.
Mrs. Bulger got a petition signed by over 100,000 people now to have this unapproved film about her son not to nominated for an Oscar. ( projecting her plight and grief to a world wide audience 16 years after the event )
Mrs Bulger misfortune was that her child was found by two psychotic nutjob children who were never taught right from wrong by their parents and the rest as they say is history.
You say locally she is hawking her story around for years, well that my be so I don't know about that but this story hasn't been revisited in the National and International Media and public psyche until now, when she tried to stop it what ever way she could.

In the words of Ronald Regean..This is not about right and left, this is about right and wrong.
And the Academy and others have got this one wrong.

*Reagan

vicky - I said much the same myself. Yes, kids run off but responsible parents generally know where they are. You may have a couple of seconds where your heart stops when you can't see them but usually no more than that. And yes, sometimes it is more than that and you get the security tannoy.

Again, all I'm saying is I appreciate her point of view. The guilt she must feel...The if onlys she must be asking herself... Imagine what everyone's thinking when they see the pics of the two calmly walking along holding his hand. This is broad daylight, taking their time; not bundled into the back of a van and spirited away. She has had to live with that so it's only natural that she may feel a sort of need to clear her name.


And again, we don't live in a world where the victims get to decide what we can and can't watch, especially when it's over 25 years after the event. Similarly, aggrieved members of the public don't get to decide Oscar nominations. People in the industry decide what is the best film or technical bit and base it on that. There's always someone desperate to take offence at something, even if they've absolutely nothing to do with it, but go and live in Snowflakeland if that's how you want to be treated. The rest of us are grown ups and can decide for ourselves.


Again, I just find it a bit awkward that she seems to be so insistent on the story not reaching a wider audience (as you put it) but is happy to write and publicise her own book and is happy to go on national tv and talk about it. If she was so unhappy about it being publicised then she's her own worst enemy frankly.

Pop, You seem to be the one not living in the real world.

a) the victim of a crime is not guilty of anything.
b) why would she have to clear her name, shes is not guilty of anything, losing sight of your child for 60 seconds is not a crime in the real world.
c) walking calmly out in broad daylight what has that got to do with anything ?
d) right thinking people respect others thoughts and feelings on subjects, especially private sensitive subjects.
e) right thinking people respect petitions when the numbers of objectors are overwhelming
f) she may have written a book on the subject as you say because it is 'her' story and 'her' sons memory.

But in looney left land and greedy Hollyweird respecting people with opposing views or personal family traumas doesn't occur.

You have opened up another subject here too, who holds the intellectual property rights of the childs photos, the cctv images, the prisoner mug shots etc.
The mother, the state or hollyweird ?

Porky would rather feel sorry for the poor grooming gangs being filmed going in to court

uble - that's what I'm saying. Clearly she's not guilty in a court of law. Doubt it would come close to anything like negligence. However, I'd imagine she carries round a lot of personal guilt. Only natural.


As for vicky, he seems to have a need to reduce it down to a good guys v bad guys simplistic argument. And anything to do with Hollywood is automatically bad in his book so you get this thread and his particular take on it, but anyway, it's nearly christmas so I'll indulge him.

a) the victim of a crime is not guilty of anything. James was the victim, not her

b) why would she have to clear her name, shes is not guilty of anything, losing sight of your child for 60 seconds is not a crime in the real world. Covered this above. I've not accused her of criminal guilt only pointing out that psychologically it's natural to blame oneself.

c) walking calmly out in broad daylight what has that got to do with anything ? Again, goes to personal guilt and potential accusations from others. She wasn't knocked out and had him snatched; she wasn't incapacitated in any way. She simply took her eyes off her son for long enough for him to be abducted. Not enough to be charged with criminal negligence but it's natural for people to be gossipping about it and muttering it under their breath at the time and afterwards and for her to carry that burden.

d) right thinking people respect others thoughts and feelings on subjects, especially private sensitive subjects. If you stopped every project at the first sign of someone moaning you'd never do anything. Art is supposed to reflect our humanity which can be both good and bad. The director's on record as saying it's sticking verbatim to the interview tapes and the point is to understand it a bit more rather than just go down the "they must be evil" route.

e) right thinking people respect petitions when the numbers of objectors are overwhelming Petitions are horsesh!t frankly. Let's have a petition and call the next royal baby queenie mcqueenface. I've seen Denise doing her best to keep it all very quiet on both This Morning and Loose Women last week. Again, that's her right. But it was 25 years ago, it was a huge story that still has a hold over this country now so many would consider it a story worth telling.


f) she may have written a book on the subject as you say because it is 'her' story and 'her' sons memory. Again, you seem to be running round in circles to get your moans lined up. You said she did her best to keep it out of "the public psyche" till now but are now saying she's happy to get it out there as long as she's writing it, promoting it etc etc. She clearly thinks it is a story worth telling otherwise she wouldn't have written her book. This film is more about Venables and Thompson by all accounts so if anyone's to claim intellectual property it's them surely, not her. Doubt you're going to be on cryarsing about their feelings though.

Porkypineapple having a go at the mother of James Bulger.
About as low as its ever got on this forum. what a horrible creep porky is.

Ebul she held James hand until she had to go into her purse to pay for her purchase.
By the time she had counted out the cash, took her change and put her purse away James had wandered off.
Was all in the tv documentary and the time involved was minimal.