I'm so proud and pleased that none of my friends have or would send me such a text message and nobody has yet invited me to one of those horrible Facebook groups.
I would just like to say what an interesting thread this is everyone, very thought provoking. The whole thing is heart breaking, including the shameful mob culture we have.
I'm worried I know someone who might send me that sort of text aswell- she means well enough, but she has sent me crap in the past, including that email about how the UK education system was wiping the Holocaust off the syllabus (which it is categorically not). I responded to that one in a calm and informed manner, but if I get this one I shall be livid.
I can't help but wonder about Jon Venables's parents in all of this. Do they care? Maybe they are going through the most horrendous time, their lives being basically over.
It's all just so horrible.
This article about the boys' backgrounds is quite interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/nov/01/bulger.familyandrelationships
I too recieved this text this morning from my friend! I asked her, did she really believe this crap to be true and explained that this man has apparently had to clear his name in the past, she text back saying naa course I don't, so why bloody send it!! I find it sickening to think that people barely even think about what these text messages do! Where does it all come from?!
The great British idiot. There would seem to be a lot of them around. I fear our national gene pool must be on a downhill slope.
LOL Sunanda, I have to agree with your post above, but I also feel that the media are to blame more than anyone else, someone on this thread mentioned how they 'whip up a frenzy' and they do and I feel it is wrong in this day and age, families that loved a bit of a brawl, drama or something even bigger used to be few and far between now we live in an age where it's everywhere, people who sensationalise things and revel in trouble.
For years I have been aware of the media frenzy thing but have never experienced anything because of it on a personal level then last Sun I home boarded a Staffordshire Bull Terrier for the night and I have never encountered such hostility when out on a 30 min walk I was scowled at more than once, people crossed over to avoid us and one bloke asked me why I wanted to add to 'the trouble' when I look so normal!
The media have a lot to answer for, ok rant over.
Love
Rebecca x
Edited to add that if just one of the many people who made our walk so unpleasent had, had the time I might have told them that my late Saint Bernard was far more likely to have attacked them, a breed legendary for being kind, gentle and plodding, the little Staffordshire was a delight.
As someone who worked within the prison system.. The crimes they did to Little Jamie WERE so horrendos that they will never be completely published. As for rehabilitation of prisoners - the choices are there for them to choose from, if they refuse or give up half way through, then that is their choice. At 10 Years old these boys knew what was right and what was wrong. As said before, many children are subjected to awfull and abusive upbringings but never go on to committ crimes as bad as these. We just have to remember the 11yr boys who beat up and abused 2 others a short while ago - this will continue unless measures are put in place to start parental training. Children will copy and imitate their surroundings and what they are subjected to themselves.
I dread to think if he was released, and he married?.. Would he have the guts to say who he is. To Think he may be walking or has been walking amongst us is quite a scary thought.
Just to turn the coin, we will never be aware of those who live close by who may have done something awful in their past as a child or an adult, who have turned themselves around and live to the same standards as those around them. Many people regret their actions once a certain maturity is reached.
I think whoever 'leaked' the knowledge about this young man needs to ask themselves 'why did they do it' does the whole of the UK need to know?? As for a fair trial, highly unlikely, the media hounds are busy trying to root out all 27 years olds appearing in court, the prison population is probably looking for all 27 years old who come into the system. As for a fair trial I think all 27 year old men are going to have a problem.
As for the inocent 27 years old who will be targeted my heart goes out to them, their families, friends and neighbours who are being threatened whilst their whole world is folding in on them. I thing the public jury, who has hung, drawn and quartered a person before finding out the real facts should also be hauled into court as for the media!!! Words fail me.
My personal opinion is that we shouldnt have been told, until an enquiry has taken place and then and only then can the public be made aware of the circumstances he could be inocent of all the charges but then again who knows if he isnt, only time will tell and for now we should stop being armchair magistrates.
Fudge
An interesting subject, discussed here a lot more constructively than anywhere else I've seen/heard recently.
The short answer to the original question is- no of course we should not know Venables' new identity or what he's alleged to have done. This is because "we" (ie the general public) includes potentially the jury who will sit in judgement on Venables if he is tried. If a 27 year old man is up on sex-related charges, probably amidst unusual levels of security at the court, even if he no longer has a scouse accent, its only human nature that jurors will be thinking "is that him?" They would be prejudiced from the start, and that means he wouldn't have a fair trial.
Just because he commited one horrific crime, many years ago, doesn't mean that he commited THIS crime that he's now accused of. THAT is why previous convictions are not revealed until AFTER the jury's verdict.
In America the media are allowed to report anything they like about an accused person. Result is what we saw in the original OJ Simpson trial. To avoid a prejudiced trial, they had to select a jury WHO HAD NEVER HEARD OF OJ SIMPSON's CASE! Since it was the most famous trial in America for 20+ years, this meant they ended up with a jury of illiterate, very simple minded people who were easily swayed by the vivid, but totally empty, arguements of OJ's clever lawyers. So OJ got away with murder.
If juries are to be composed of normal intelligent people, then the law has to restrict what information is released before the trial.
Jamie's parents are normal human beings, if they were given the info there would be nothing to stop them revealing it to others, so no exception can be made for them either.
The underlying problem is that SOME people want to know everything IMMEDIATELY, without waiting for the trial to run its course. Just as some people want to know what's going to happen in Eastenders next week, and there are whole magazines devoted to FUTURE storylines in such soap operas. Likewise many kids would unwrap their Christmas presents in November given half a chance- but we don't let them do we? There is no NEED whatsoever for anyone to know anything about this trial before the verdict. The public should not even have been told that Venables had been recalled to prison.
Since the Bulger case there have been other cases involving even worse cruelty, and commited by adults not disturbed children. for instance a few years ago the girl who was tortured by an (adult) gang for two days before being set on fire and burned alive. Her case has been forgotten by media and public. Every few years, the media picks on a particualr case and won't ever let go of it. With Myra Hindley dead, a replacement is needed as a public hate figure. People need to feel that evil is something totally outside themselves, outside the human race, some monster that can be isolated from the rest of the world. Hate in an emotion and emotion is often a substitute for thinking. It takes a lot less effort.
All of this has been stirred up by the gutter press. They don't give a damn about James Bulger or his parents, anymore than they care about Madeleine McCann's parents, whom they will gladly vilify or sanctify, whichever sells more copies of their paper. That's one of the most depressing things about this country- the greatest power in the land is wielded by gutter press journalists, editors, and owners, to whom politicians grovel. And these people aren't even working to some sinister, conspiracy-based agenda. All they want to do is sell a few more copies than the other rag, or pull in a few more viewers. And they know they can rely upon the lowest human instincts, which we all have in common.
Absolutely agree with you Pete. And I think you hit the nail on the head with this one:
The underlying problem is that SOME people want to know everything IMMEDIATELY, without waiting for the trial to run its course. Just as some people want to know what's going to happen in Eastenders next week, and there are whole magazines devoted to FUTURE storylines in such soap operas. Likewise many kids would unwrap their Christmas presents in November given half a chance- but we don't let them do we? There is no NEED whatsoever for anyone to know anything about this trial before the verdict. The public should not even have been told that Venables had been recalled to prison.
People are getting a sick kind of pleasure from all of the drama.
totally agree with those last posts.
there is some unhealthy collective fascination and hysteria around this young man when there have been, and will be sadly, many horrendous crimes committed on children, young people or adults, like the sickening case you mentioned Swhypno. but it seems people dont care about those closer-to-normal-life atrocities. they care about a single figure that has become a myth for Evil.
I believe that whatever atrocities these 2 boys did, it was their environment that drove them to do it. parents, family, friends and whatever sick films they were allowed to watch at 9 or 10. and the violence in the language used around them as well. basically, their social envrionment at large.
I dont know if anyone has seen the film "Boy A" about a similar case, and once the young man comes out of jail, very fragile but hopeful and well-meaning, one of his colleagues at his new job finds his real identity and phones the media...And the hunt starts. It is very thought provoking. very intelligent and much needed cinema.
Like some people said earlier on this thread, prison IMO doesnt do any good to criminals. if anything, it traumatizes them further and makes them more hardy shaky people, who will find it harder to relate to a generally non violent society.
I really liked the suggestion here that we should look at sentences as Healing, also bearing in mind society needs to be protected from those people.
I personally feel violence is more and more glamourized and trivialized. When I was a child, "thriller" by Michael Jackson was the scary stuff for us. then as a teenager "the exorcist" was the paroxism of horror and trauma (but I must confess it hooked me. I saw it a few times. but wouldnt see it now as it dont want to go to bed with bad vibes anymore!). and these days it is (at least in France) 5 US crime/post mortem tv series per week (with the appropriate amount corpse cutting), and new horrors films monthly with their ecstasy of extreme graphic violence and sadism. and people, especially young people, go to see those films. I am aware I react deep down like a a religious extremist or puritan but I really, really, really feel this is nothing else but pollution to the self and what's the use of eating organic and having plants around the house and mumble "positive" statements all day if it is to drink such violence and hatred?
I dont know if anyone has seen the film "Boy A" about a similar case, and once the young man comes out of jail, very fragile but hopeful and well-meaning, one of his colleagues at his new job finds his real identity and phones the media...And the hunt starts. It is very thought provoking. very intelligent and much needed cinema.
I was going to mention this, Fadette. When it was on TV I chose not to watch it as I knew I would find it too upsetting. I did get the book from the library (it's by Jonathan Trigell) - it's very well written - but I found I couldn't finish it. (Towards the end I flicked forward to find what I feared was going to happen and then couldn't bear to read the details.)
Sorry, I'm about to go off topic!
It's coincidental you mentioned horror films, Fadette, as I woke up thinking about them this morning and just read your post. I totally agree with you.
I've worked on a couple of tv programmes and know the normality of going to work - long 12 hour days, meeting directors, the producer, dressing the actors, watching the same scene over and over again... I was thinking how I cannot understand the mentality of making certain types of horror film... These people who sit around tables, write scripts, draw story-boards, work on dark sets etc, etc... A lot of creative energy from a 'normal' source gone into making something very, very sick. Thinking in particular films such as the 'Saw' series. How can right-thinking people want to create things like this? And is there an impact on vulnerable minds who watch them? I can't help but think there is. You feel physically worse and emotionally drained from watching certain films, whereas others, you come away feeling enlivened and spiritually lifted
I met a woman last year in L.A who had worked on CSI, well she couldn't handle it anymore because the sets were so dark and included lots of morgue scenes - she was going for days at a time without seeing daylight.
I remember hearing a few years ago how young offenders had access to violent and amoral Playstation games. I've seen some of these games and I can see the appeal... BUT... Games that glorify gang crime or blowing someone's head off with a shotgun IN CERTAIN HANDS is a very, very disturbing thought.
We live in a society that has some sick elements, so it's not surprising that it's producing some sick people.
I so agree with you Tigerlilly, I could quote your entire post again.
I feel deep down violent graphics (films or video games) have an effect on vulnerable people. but then what is "vulnerable"? young people? underprivileged youngsters who are already experiencing emotional and relating problems? or angry people?...
I have the feeling - and I must say it isnt easy for me to become fully aware of these feelings as they are not "trendy" and make me sound like a reactionary woman - graphic violence is bad for everybody.
Ok, I will admit there s a difference between watching even a shocking film like The Exorcist and being scared to lie down in bed in case you start howling like a wolf without being able to stop :speechless-smiley-0, and living surrounded by a climate of violent entertainment, with extreme horror films and video games.
That reminds me, a few years ago in Italy a driver who had voluntarily run over a few people during the day, when arrested, said he was trying to get "points" like in his video game, and it was revealed that he spent whole days playing on it....so sad.
Also the gang youth in the much feared suburbs of Paris were reported during a documentary to be very fond of violent pornographic films...when one knows that there have been and still are many gang rapes cases in the basements and cellars of the fortress-like 1980s high rise towers, one isnt really surprised.
But I think nobody wants to be the first to blame our entertainment system and get labelled as "reactionary" or puritan, therefore things (that s a feeling I have) deteriorate and society becomes more and more violent...
Also, I feel I have become aware of this problem and it is a small victory for me to be absolutely clear that I wont go to the cinema with friends or anyone else to see shocking films with a lot of violence in them. I have started to avoid all violence on screen, like self preservation. Actually I have noticed how the older I get the less I can cope with violence or gore on screen (or real life), which is an enigma for me as I remember well going to see "Silence of the Lambs" or renting scary films when I was 20 years younger...now I'm a wimp!
And I think, like honesty and empathy towards animals and the environement, this now a value I look for in the people I surround myself with. Now way Im going to go out with a man who gets kick from "screaming" appalling films! 🙂
I was totally off topic. sorry again.
The answer to "should we know" is probably: NO. For it satisfies a unhealthy obsession. Of course, I will be honest, I'll probably read the headlines if the media give us detailed info of what J.V did...but I wont seek it.
I am aware I react deep down like a a religious extremist or puritan but I really, really, really feel this is nothing else but pollution to the self and what's the use of eating organic and having plants around the house and mumble "positive" statements all day if it is to drink such violence and hatred?
I think Fadette makes a very good point here. Mental/spiritual pollution is an even worse problem than biochemical pollution.
Having said which, personally I'm not against graphic depictions of violence if its necessary to the story. For example I think war films should show the effects of violence as realistically as possible, so people know what war is really like. Same goes for real life news etc. Our own media (unlike Al-Jazeera for instance) show very sanitised versions of real life war and violence, so people get a video game impression of war and are then horrified when British soldiers really get killed.
Incidentally there was a report on radio 4 yestarday about a case in Norway similar to Jamie Bulger's. Two six year old boys killed a five year old. THe media there soon dropped the story, local people seemed to have forgotten about it by now, and the perpetrators had intensive psychotherapy treatment at home. Amazingly, even the victim's parents agreed that this was the right approach. I'm not saying the Norwegian approach is best though, cos the victim's family still lived in fear of the perpetrators, who remain very antisocial from the sound of it. However the difference in public/media attitudes was interesting.
Another interesting fact BTW is that in Europe (though not America) the public apparently have very little interest in their politicians' sex lives!