Detainment the Film

This should be unbelievable, but we've come to expect stuff like this unfortunately.

Everyone involved in this film should be utterly ashamed.

There was a documentary on this last year...I think it was channel 5.

Certainly the most difficult crime I have heard of in my lifetime.

The cruelty of the crime itself and of course the age of the killers.

Children this young do not commit such acts, how do you punish them?

This film company should have contacted Jamie Bulger's mother on this.

Any attempt to humanize Jamie Bulger's killers will tear her apart.

There may be away of telling and explaining this one day, but it does not sound if this film does it.

My sympathies are with Jamie Bolger's mother here.

Perhaps this film or any film on this very difficult crime, should not be made until after the death of

Jamie Bolger's mother.

One thing I remember from that documentary was how out of control these children were before this act.

They were doing pretty well anything they wanted to, there seemed no control from either parents or school.

They may well have felt invincible.


Now I am doing what the film is, any discussion of this hurts Jamie Bolger's mother.

It must wait until after she has did.

NOT WHEN THEIR IS MONEY TOO BE MAID   ho ho

It is not that simple.

Yes, the mother is rightly upset, and no, it is unlikely that this film will add much to the sum of human knowledge.

But where does it end? Saving Private Ryan? Schindler's List? Titanic? The families of victims are never consulted. The next series of The Crown, we are told, will cover Aberfan, where over 100 children died.

I don't know what the answer is. On the whole, it might be better if the film had never been made, but now that it has, I don't want grieving relatives, however sincere, however deep their pain, to act as censors.

I have always been in favour of appropriate punishment - now we no longer have it  -  this is the result

do you see how it works

and that is just for the film makers

The film has the good reviews....I do not think that subject matter would affect judgements for an Oscar
.

These boys committed a heinous crime...but they were 10 years old.

They were detained in a secure institution, until released in 2001.

It is difficult to punish 10 year old boys. But I feel their punishment was too lenient.

I feel they should been detained until they were 30, 10 years of which should have been spent in an adult

prison.

It would have not have been very pleasant for them in an adult prion but the other prisoners would have left

them in no doubt of the heinousness of their crimes.


Then released with new identities, etc. This way they would have also lost some of their youth.

But could start again at 30.


just my own opinion.

no - I mean the film makers

I do have sympathy with Jamie Bolger's mother, it is not just the tragic loss of her son here

It is the feeling she must have that those responsible have somehow got away with it, because of their age.

I can sympathize with this, she still feels the injustice of it all.

I would not watch that film ever, to me it beggars belief that the film makers thought it to be an appropriate subject to produce a film about a crime that shocked the world.

UR; you need to read about the further exploits of one the convicted beaasts (others whereabouts unknown & well hid) he's back in jail after being caught with indecent images of children! And not for the first time, may i add. Time has not helped or changed this particular monster, & now he can watch himself being portrayed on screen in a film tipped for an Oscar

One of em has proved a sexual wrong un twice since release, who knows what the other gets up to. Should have been put down for public safety.

Irony of ironies being that the killer boys were supposed to have watched a horror film Childs Play that their parents had rented out and mimiced/copied what the main character Chucky did from what I recall anyway.
They had been influenced by the film which I presume had an 18s rating.
So lets make a film of this child killing now, whats the worst that could happen ? No one ever said in Holly/Paedowood.

I think a lot of children watch adult films they are not supposed to...they do not usually go out and copy it.

I watched Physco under age, I did not immediately start to stab women in showers.


This was an evil crime normally committed by adults but committed by children. This has completely thrown us.

One way round this we may have used in the past, was to diagnose both these children insane. It is argued

one of them is psychopathic  anyway so why not have both children in under that.

I know 10 year old boys are not saints, but they don't normally kill babies!


The advantage of the psychopathic diagnose is they would have been committed to a secure children's mental

establishment, and at 18 transferred to an adults secure mental establishment, we can hold them as long we

like. If we ever think they are safe let them out, but at the first sign of wrongdoing back they come.


Still we did not this, so much not more we can say.


I have not seen this film and would hope they have not sensationalised it to make money, as Moisock suspects.

Serious books and documentaries on this I approve of.

I may watch it on utube if I can, but I don't know, it is a hard one this

Sorry Jamie Bolger was 2 not a baby, makes it worse, thinking what he went through from this pair of sadists.

I think there may also be a case here of these two boys feeding off each other. They were both essentially

evil and wanted to do this sort of thing, but needed the other to bring it out so they could actually do it.


There have been other recorded cases of this.


In fact I think this may have happened with Brady and Hindley, quite the two most evil people in my lifetine.


Althought that chap in Norway Breivik  who massacred an island of young people is not far behibnd, he did

that in cold blood, no spur of the moment, incredible that man is still alive.

Will they make a film about Breivik ?

????????

Simply inexcusable that the parents weren't told a film was being made about their childs murder,shameful by the Irish director.

I think it is distasteful,it is only recent history and too many still suffer, certainly won't be seeing it myself and sincerely hope it flops.

would have to agree pa

He wormed his way through his interview on the news,i thought(rightly or wrongly) there was little empathy there and it was all about his film. (my impression only)

Correction there is a Breivik movie 22 July made last year

solid & correct, pa

Yes saw that interview, visibly shifting in his chair when asked the tough questions.
Any publicity is good publicity to these greedy, amoral, degenerate barstewards

The more controversial a film is the more publicity the director gets

I can not make a judgement on it until I watch it.

He should not have made this film without consulting the mother of Jamie Bulger first

Bolger sorry

i'd rather watch a 2 hour webcam of Leadsom & May

oh no

I do not want to watch it, I probably won't

But it is difficult to comment on anything without seeing it

This Director is out to make his name

Je does not mind who gets hurt in the process Baphornet

it's a personal choice. I hate censorship; but i couldn't watch it

Nor me Baphornet, I could not possibly watch that film.

burn the master tape

Well said Pa Lapsy. Absolutely disgraceful. Everybody should boycott it.

Words cannot adequately describe the contempt in which I hold the director of this film. Ditto everybody else involved in its production.

But worse yet, if that is even possible, is the fact that it has now been nominated for an academy award. What the hell were the committee thinking? Did not a single member raise any of the obvious concerns? Dear God, they must possess the collective moral rectitude of a rattlesnake.

Can you imagine if it wins? The optics of that insufferable **** smugly walking up on stage would be tough to bear.

I think even worse is the film being described as a sympathetic look at the 2 murderers.
I wouldn't watch it either.

Well the shape of water was nominated last year and its about bestiality, art for arts sake ,money for fecks sake.

I think even worse is the film being described as a sympathetic look at the 2 murderers.
I wouldn't watch it either. akabula

They were a little of sadists

If they were older say mid teens +, they would have had a minimum of 20 - 30 years.

I still think they should have got 20 myself, but we found it too difficult as they were only ten.


Still I think they will always be looking over their shoulders.

Pictures of them do appear from time to time, even though it is illegal to show them.

One thing they cannot change their DNA.


I would hope they have remorse for the terrible thing they did, but who knows?

little pair

If they'd been older, ...

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

Though what this has to do with the film, which I still won't be watching.

How about one on how yorkshire 'men' behave?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/james-bulger-short-film-director-wont-wit...

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.

Often when people apply for a job. People have to declare their criminal record, it is illegal if we don't.

Do these two declare their conviction for murder?

If they are living with others do they declare their conviction for murder

What if they meet someone and want to marry them and have a family, would they admit their conviction for

murder.

You see I think people would need to know for their own protection, and then they can their own choice

If they do not give out this information then somebody else has to, but at the moment this is illegal.

I believe this wrong and this need to be removed.

Of course their conviction was as a child 10 years old, but this can hardly be presented as normal childish

misbehaviour, how many other 10 year old children do you know of, have committed murder?

It must tell us something about their personalities, surely?

I would like to see it being made legal to identify them.


just a point.

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.

Surely films are made about tragic stories all the time aren't they?

Breivik. The Boston Marathon bombing. How many 9/11 films. Munich. The Rhys Jones ITV thing last year.

All would no doubt be very upsetting to the loved ones of the victims but we don't live in a world where victims or those who want to ride over the top of them and speak on their behalf depict what we can or can't watch.




Not sure I'd watch this though. This was very much on my patch. They stopped on the rezzie where we always played footy as kids and where I still take my mum's dog for a walk and I would regularly walk under the tracks where he was killed to go to our pub of that time. Unless they're going to solely deal with the other stuff (what happened to make them that way? what happened in prison to make them fit for release? which could well be interesting) then I don't really want to watch a film of a child being abducted and murdered when it's so close to home thanks.

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 see akabula 

The thing is Jamie Bolger whose life was ended at 2, cannot carry on his life can he.

So how about a life for a life.

We have stopped capital punishment which I agree with, and we could never have executed these two anyway.


But we do normally confine people for a very long time.

These two were released after 8 years, and seem to have been able to complete their education.

They are on release under licence. Venables has been back to prison, and is back now on child pornography

charges.

What my objection is, if people identify them then they should be allowed to say so. Including on the

internet.

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.


You are right PP we cannot stop films with painful subject matter.

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.

I think we are under an obligation to protect them though. Firstly - and most obviously - to prevent another crime. You can give them a new id, tell them to move away or you can go through the trouble of imprisoning someone else for murder or GBH.

Secondly, they were kids. That's not a small thing. The law states that kids can't take responsibility in the same way that adults can. And people can change. I'm sure that it wasn't treated lightly to release them. They were assessed and only after that were they deemed fit for it. Looks like they haven't got it right with one of them but that's with the benefit of hindsight.

At the end of the day, these guys are going to be looking over their shoulders the rest of their lives. Wondering if someone is linking them to their past.




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.

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.

agree Saddo

I am all for exposing their identities as I said earlier

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

Fair enough uble. I can certainly see both sides of the argument.

Just don't think it was a decision taken lightly. People very knowledgeable and with lots of experience in the field probably called it.

@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.

People very knowledgeable and with lots of experience in the field probably called it.

No doubt a description that was applied to those that wanted to free the taxi driver.
And how wrong were they!

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

and if i was his mother, i wouldn't "let it go" either. What a crass & insensitive thing to say; especially as you say you are 'local' to the heinous crime

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.

Just don't think it was a decision taken lightly. People very knowledgeable and with lots of experience in the field probably called it pp

I accept that, but this always a tough one, because children don't normally commit murder.

So the child rules we normally used, were not really up to this?


I did suggest the Mental Health route eralier, 'do we have a pair of physcopaths here', they could be held at

the discretion of psychiatrists, but then they could say they were cured. so perhaps that was not the answer.


I will stick to saying I think people can identify them on the internet, that is my argument.


I think women can ask if a paedophile is near bye, there a suggestion years ago, and Venables could be

argued to be one, caught with internet porn, they may need more than that though, I dont know?

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

My post at 23.39 was to PP.
Had just read Saddos post and expanded on it.

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.

Not sure why it was crass personally.

Fully understand she will suffer it for the rest of her life but most people get on with it rather than write a book and camp outside Granada TV every night.

I wonder what she's holding on to. At least with the likes of Stephen Lawrence's mum there's a fight for justice, at getting the perps brought to book. These kids were caught, tried and convicted.




That said, I can understand her reasoning. Can you imagine the guilt immediately after. Imagine the questions and looks from friends, family and people passing in the street. How do you manage to not have your 2-year old at your side for more than 5 seconds, never mind long enough for someone to come along and calmly walk off with him. Must haunt her to be fair.

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.

*not to be nominated

*Reagan

So Porcypine, Jamie's mum should really let it drop, but her guilt at allowing it to happen haunts her. You don't think that is crass as well as presumptuous? Not surprised you included the more worthy one either.

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.

Stephen Lawrence the filthy BBC favourite word

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 ?

A mother who loses her child like this is never going to forgive or forget

I am sure she blames herself

This is human nature

Still if you happy with your view of her pp

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

Porky wants to leave ho ho

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.

Its her story, her child, her misfortune two nutters of a entire generation just happen to walk away with her child that day.

She is trying to live with this grief and loss everyday and every year since, only for some artistical constipated loon from 'the movies to splash it across the  silver screen without asking permission or thinking of the consequences to relatives and friends, just so he can make a 'get rich quick film'and enhance his sad talentless career.
One minute you say its is ART then the next minute you tell us it is verbatim police interviews....(The BBC produce that on their Panorama programme monthly and no Oscars handed out.)

So are we now to take out copyrights on everything that happens to us in life in case some artistic ar$ehole loon from 'the movies' wants to make a few shekles out of a story.

Whats next for Paedowood and which family will they barge in on ? 'Maddie The Movie' the siblings eyeview....Maddie and the Dungeon of Doom ? Sick.

PS.
The a - f were all your points pointed out and the petition was about 'objectors' not a petition to 'persuade' ie.the next born princess to be named such and such.
100,000 plus 'objectors' totally ignored by the luvvies and their sick industry.

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.

I am inclined to agree with Akabula unless pp has a link

to justify anything he is implying

Any mother taking a 2 year old boy out would have to keep on eye on him in todays society,

there are evil people who would gladly snaffle a spare 2 year boy.

But when paying for shopping and things like that he could have dodged away?

It is not an easy task always keeping eyes on a child


But this does detract anything from the evil of the two 10 year olds who picked him up took him away and

murdered him.

On a documentary showed earlier this year on this case, in recreation(I assume taken from evidence)

the two boys were looking that day for a child to steal.

The problem with this case is how do we punish two 10 year old for such an act of evil as they are children

themselves.

They were detained for 8 years in juvenile detention and released under licence in 2001.

How this was for them I don't know, but they could not have expected a holiday surely?

My only objection was they have been given identity protection for life. I am not sure I would have done

that, although I assume it was given for their protection from reprisals.

But reprisals may not necessary have happened as any one doing them would be breaking the law

which if caught they would be punished for.


I am not sure these two should be living a happy life without remembering what they did.

I want them to be just a bit on their toes.


I shall watch this film when I feel able to.


I like studying murders, but I do not do them myself

It is the psychology and dynamics of what happened that day I am interesting in.

Disgraceful I know.

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.

i thought Twitter was famous for inane & odious comments; it seems a few have slipped onto here

I believe it Akabula,

These two children were looking for a child to steal, they could have just grabbed his hand and taken him,

other people may not have thought this unusual, assumed they were his brothers or something.

Jamie was for a moment in the wrong place at the wrong time...

Ebul they tried to abduct a youngster earlier and failed.
Despite their age this was pre-planned. 2 evil little coonts.

yes

Its her story, her child, her misfortune two nutters of a entire generation just happen to walk away with her child that day.
It's not just her story though. That's the point. She's given her side of it. God knows she's done it many, many times. This is exploring the police interviews. She doesn't own copyright on that side by any means. She just seems to own it because she's put herself front and centre so much. James's dad has retreated and tried to build his life. That's his choice. She chose to go on tv, that's hers. Doesn't make her custodian of the truth though.

She is trying to live with this grief and loss everyday and every year since, only for some artistical constipated loon from 'the movies to splash it across the  silver screen without asking permission or thinking of the consequences to relatives and friends, just so he can make a 'get rich quick film'and enhance his sad talentless career.
Again, if she's so aggrieved at it being made public then she's going a funny way about it. I don't think it's a get rich quick film is it. It's 30 minutes of pretty damn grim stuff isn't it. Hardly a compilation of pandas falling over. As for talentless career, I bow to your undoubted knowledge of movie making and your shelf full of oscars.

One minute you say its is ART then the next minute you tell us it is verbatim police interviews....(The BBC produce that on their Panorama programme monthly and no Oscars handed out.)
Jesus, you're struggling now. Again, if you want to develop a new career as an art critic and tell us how taking actual words spoken and using them renders a film artless then please share.


So are we now to take out copyrights on everything that happens to us in life in case some artistic ar$ehole loon from 'the movies' wants to make a few shekles out of a story.
Interesting use of shekels(sp). What have Israel/Jewish people got to do with this? As for the rest, just grow up eh.

Whats next for Paedowood and which family will they barge in on ? 'Maddie The Movie' the siblings eyeview....Maddie and the Dungeon of Doom ? Sick.
And this is the whole point of the thread. You don't like Hollywood for some reason. Get knocked back once after taking a girl to the flicks maybe? Films get made about true-life crime all the time. You're actively looking to take offence at something purely because it's Hollywood.

PS.
The a - f were all your points pointed out and the petition was about 'objectors' not a petition to 'persuade' ie.the next born princess to be named such and such.
100,000 plus 'objectors' totally ignored by the luvvies and their sick industry.
The 100,000 plus objectors can simply choose to watch something else and stop telling the rest of the adult population what they can and can't do. We can all decide for ourselves thank you very much.

She's white working class who probably voted brexit. Your critisism of her while unable to resist bigging up Lawrence says it all.

brexit


Jesus man, it's only tuesday morning and you've just won cretinous snowflake of the week.

Just like Thompson and Venables didn't know right from wrong, this Director also doesn't know right from wrong.
Birds of a feather flock together.

Hang on saddo, good news. You're down to second place.

A film director's just been seen as comparable to two child killers.



Has this place every been more cringingly pathetic? Seriously guys.

The only thing pathetic in this sorry saga, is the lack of morals and right thinking shown, firstly by the killer boys,
then the director by not consulting the dead childs mother,
then dissing the moral outrage shown by 100,000 objectors,
then luvvies and lefties patting each other on the back on social media for their sick Oscar nomination.
And now Pop having a 'pop' at the grieving mother.

A new low for this industry as I said before.

porky .. hows the bluenose with the mars on his boat

Don't know mate. Why you asking?