Children

[Cerberus 273]

Not exactly relevant ... not at all relevant. Why not use your powers to move or delete the post? (I'm a mod myself now, on two other forums, I know what you're capable of )

[Husfar 1]

Let's see if this qualifies as relevant for the topic....

Heard on the radio that the son of some Eastender actress has just died. Never seen an episode of Eastenders myself, but I think I recognised the name as a Deathlist candidate. This son had appearantly been ill for a long time, so his death was no real suprise....

Maybe Deathlist has a policy to only have one entrance per family?

[Anubis the Jackal 76]

Let's see if this qualifies as relevant for the topic....

Heard on the radio that the son of some Eastender actress has just died. Never seen an episode of Eastenders myself, but I think I recognised the name as a Deathlist candidate. This son had appearantly been ill for a long time, so his death was no real suprise....

Maybe Deathlist has a policy to only have one entrance per family?

Apparently so, but certainly not Deathlist fodder

[MyBrainHurts2 4]

what happened to the guideline of "if there's grass on the field, play ball"?

 

...wait...that wasn't for Death List/Death Pool candidates, was it?

 

Never mind.

[Anubis the Jackal 76]

As in 'nowhere near famous enough.' Some soap bint loses 1-year old child, hardly going to have them blowing smoke out of the Vatican Chimney is it?

[Handrejka 1,840]

I'm a hypocrit too as I have former child stars on my list and they haven't really chosen to be famous. This was one of the reasons I didn't choose children. I think it's too easy to pick children who are only known for being sick. If other people want to pick them that's up to them but I find children boring so I tend to avoid them

[in eternum+ 20]

I think it's too easy to pick children who are only known for being sick. If other people want to pick them that's up to them but I find children boring  so I tend to avoid them

Absolutely fair enough. And besides, if a child is only famous for being ill then they wouldn't qualify anyway.

 

But let's say if... oh... one of those adorable Olsen twins became terminal, surely they would be fair game (though maybe they're not famous enough?? They might also be of age now, so perhaps not the best example)?

 

Whoops - am I a sikko for suggestion that [gasp] a child [/gasp] be 'fair game'? How would I like it if people were betting on one of my children to die? I must be a sick m*therf*cker.

[Teddy 21]

I think it's too easy to pick children who are only known for being sick. If other people want to pick them that's up to them but I find children boring  so I tend to avoid them

Absolutely fair enough. And besides, if a child is only famous for being ill then they wouldn't qualify anyway.

 

But let's say if... oh... one of those adorable Olsen twins became terminal, surely they would be fair game (though maybe they're not famous enough?? They might also be of age now, so perhaps not the best example)?

 

Whoops - am I a sikko for suggestion that [gasp] a child [/gasp] be 'fair game'? How would I like it if people were betting on one of my children to die? I must be a sick m*therf*cker.

Do you mean these Olsen twins??

[maryportfuncity 10,017]

Good point about the Olsen's, anyone on the Hollywood walk of fame has to be fair game for the DL. Their lollipop faces suggest an eating regime that may already be wreaking hell on their livers, kidneys and heart muscles. Their childhood fame suggests adult depression and long-term attachment problems leading possibly to addictions, self-destruction, self harm and suicide. Well - anyway - we can hope.

 

DL 2006, only if they decide to push the self-destruct button, long lives on the other hand....

[Tempus Fugit 212]

Good point about the Olsen's, anyone on the Hollywood walk of fame has to be fair game for the DL. Their lollipop faces suggest an eating regime that may already be wreaking hell on their livers, kidneys and heart muscles. Their childhood fame suggests adult depression and long-term attachment problems leading possibly to addictions, self-destruction, self harm and suicide. Well - anyway - we can hope.

 

DL 2006, only if they decide to push the self-destruct button, long lives on the other hand....

Childhood fame certainly affected Dickie'O.

 

The Olsen's though are on a much bigger scale. I wonder if being a twin helps to diminish the stress, as they always have somebody to confide in. Now if they ever had a serious falling out, I think the emotionally weaker one would go into self destructive meltdown.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

children r innocent  they r pure and without blame  leave them out of this forum...

This kid was....

 

 

On 12 February 1993 two-year-old James Bulger (ABOVE!) was brutally murdered by Jonathan (Jon) Venables (10) and Robert (Bobbie) Thompson (10) in Liverpool, England.

 

 

The boy was taken from a shopping mall while there with his mother. (A video surveillance camera captured footage of the two killers leading James away.) The child was brutalized as he was forced to walk along with the boys. (Witnesses later reported seeing the boys dragging, pushing, and carrying the weeping-two-year old during a disjointed journey through the streets of Liverpool.

 

Two days after the murder, James' remains were found on a lonely stretch of railroad track. He was naked from the waist down — his shoes, socks, trousers, and underpants had been taken off. His penis had been manipulated by his abductors, but he had not been anally penetrated. He'd been beaten to death with rocks, bricks, and an iron bar. As the boys hammered at him, they splattered him with model aeroplane paint stolen days earlier. Once he was dead, his killers laid him on the tracks, and his body was cut in two by a passing train.

 

I think some kids are fair game on the death list.

[Tempus Fugit 212]

HOS you're starting to sound like a red top tabloid,

 

You're using the emotive argument to try to justify unpleasant thoughts.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

HOS you're starting to sound like a red top tabloid,

 

You're using the emotive argument to try to justify unpleasant thoughts.

Why? Because I'd dance a merry jig and get absolutely slaughtered if Thompson and Venables were subjected to karma?

 

The comment was made that all kids are pure and innocent. My rebuttal was simple. "Bollocks!"

 

My emotive argument is in direct conflict with emotional arguement that says children shouldn't be included.

 

Some kids are fair game.

 

Is there anyone here that wouldn't have wished these "Sweet Little Boys" dead?

[Tempus Fugit 212]

HOS you're starting to sound like a red top tabloid,

 

You're using the emotive argument to try to justify unpleasant thoughts.

Why? Because I'd dance a merry jig and get absolutely slaughtered if Thompson and Venables were subjected to karma?

 

The comment was made that all kids are pure and innocent. My rebuttal was simple. "Bollocks!"

 

My emotive argument is in direct conflict with emotional arguement that says children shouldn't be included.

 

Some kids are fair game.

 

Is there anyone here that wouldn't have wished these "Sweet Little Boys" dead?

Yes me,

 

how would wishing them dead solve anything.

 

The damage has been done, why were they like that, don't their parents bear some of the blame?

 

Maybe you wish them dead as well?

 

Be careful what you wish for, the repercussions may be more than you bargained for.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

Yes me,

 

how would wishing them dead solve anything.

It doesn't. Won't and can't. But I detect just an incy wincy bit of irony here... This place is called Death List. Do we not select the people we think will die and then cheer them on?

 

I've had these two on my DL since 1993. Kids or not. Re-read the comments that my post was in response to before you go off on a holier than thou trip.

 

For the record I hope that karma serves on V&T and I'd certainly like to video it for Ogrish.

 

The damage has been done, why were they like that, don't their parents bear some of the blame?

Who knows? How do you quantify it? Maybe they were abused as kids. Maybe mummy and daddy didn't love them enough...

 

Who cares?

 

Maybe you wish them dead as well?

Not really, unless one of them has a crippling, terminal illness. At least this way they would be famous enough to qualify.

 

  Be careful what you wish for, the repercussions may be more than you bargained for.

Can I adopt that as my new signature?

[Tempus Fugit 212]

I can think of far more deserving people to wish death upon,

 

Blair and Bush, two men whose direct and indirect actions have led to the deaths of thousands, maybe tens of thousands.

 

They do deserve to die unpleasantly, especially since neither one shows the least bit of remorse.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

I can think of far more deserving people to wish death upon,

 

Blair and Bush, two men whose direct and indirect actions have led to the deaths of thousands, maybe tens of thousands.

 

They do deserve to die unpleasantly, especially since neither one shows the least bit of remorse.

Now you're onto something... you see I see that wish and raise you a Cheney!

 

We all have our secret wish lists...

[Tomb raider 9]

I know it's none of my bussiness, but since you published your rather controversial statements about the Bulger-murderers on a public internet forum, I'd like to express my disagreement.

 

The point is this. You stated:

 

The comment was made that all kids are pure and innocent. My rebuttal was simple. "Bollocks!"

 

Of course it depends on your definition of 'innocent', but legally every child up to a certain age counts as 'innocent'. Not because he wouldn't be able to commit the most horrid crimes (as the Bulger-killers clearly did), but because he can't be held responsible for his actions. That's the reason why no child younger than 16 can be imprisoned, no charges can be filed to anyone younger than 12, and no civilized country (except for the good old U.S. of A.) allows the death penalty to be executed on minors.

 

It is my humble opinion that your post was tasteless and inflammatory. No matter how horrid their crimes were, pillorying children of that age is unnecessarily cruel. As we find 10-yrs-olds incapable of almost anything that requests a sense of responsibility, we should be very careful to judge them on anything as serious as this. These boys should be treated as extremely ill psychiatric patients, and the way their parents raised them should be thoroughly scrutinized. Making them an example of evil is unjustified.

[Harvester Of Souls 40]

It is my humble opinion that your post was tasteless and inflammatory. No matter how horrid their crimes were, pillorying children of that age is unnecessarily cruel. As we find 10-yrs-olds incapable of almost anything that requests a sense of responsibility, we should be very careful to judge them on anything as serious as this. These boys should be treated as extremely ill psychiatric patients, and the way their parents raised them should be thoroughly scrutinized.

Inflammatory? Definitely.

 

Tasteless? Beating a 3 year old kid to death with an iron bar. Stoving his face in with bricks (not forgetting sexual 'interference') and then putting his body (still alive according to the coroner) on a railway so the next train would cut him into pieces.

 

That sort of evil defies comprehension.

 

Sometimes the gravity of the crime pushes into that special little place that doesn't quite fit into the other pigeon holes... This is one of those cases.

 

Making them an example of evil is unjustified.

Tell that to Denise Bulger.

Edited December 21, 2005 by Harvester Of Souls

[Captain Oates 21]

Beating a 3 year old kid to death with an iron bar. Stoving his face in with bricks (not forgetting sexual 'interference') and then putting his body (still alive according to the coroner) on a railway so the next train would cut him into pieces.

 

That sort of evil defies comprehension.

Children are very remarkable learning machines. To me, the evil that defies comprehension is that which allows and enables children of our society to learn to be murderers by the age of ten.

Sometimes the gravity of the crime pushes into that special little place that doesn't quite fit into the other pigeon holes... This is one of those cases.

 

Making them an example of evil is unjustified.

Tell that to Denise Bulger.

It is not the children who should be made the example of evil, but those of us who were responsible for their upbringing and for the society in which they lived.

[Tempus Fugit 212]

It is not the children who should be made the example of evil, but those of us who were responsible for their upbringing and for the society in which they lived.

"Following the murder, the boys' mothers— Susan Venables and Ann Thompson—were repeatedly attacked in the street and vilified in the press.

 

Thompson's father had abandoned his wife and children five years previously, one week before the family home was burned down in a fire. Ann Thompson was a heavy drinker, who found it difficult to control her seven children. Notes (obtained by author Blake Morrison) from an NSPCC case conference on the family described it as "appalling". The children "bit, hammered, battered, tortured each other". Incidents in the report include Philip (the third child) threatening his older brother Ian with a knife. Ian asked to be taken into foster care, and when he was returned to his family, he attempted suicide with an overdose of painkillers. Both Ann and Philip had also attempted suicide in the past.

 

Venables's family was less chaotic; although his parents were also separated, they lived near to each other, and he lived at his father's house two days a week. Both his older brother and his younger sister had learning disabilities which were severe enough to make it necessary that they attend special schools (for children too disabled to be taught in the mainstream system). Jon himself was hyperactive and had attempted to throttle another boy in a fight at school. The police had been called to Susan Venables's house in 1987, when she left her children (then aged 3, 5 and 7) alone in the house for 3 hours. Case notes from that incident describe Susan's "severe depressive problem" and suicidal tendencies."

 

With those kind of upbringings, it's somewhat easier to see how the tragic Bulger murder happened.

[Godot 148]

Beating a 3 year old kid to death with an iron bar. Stoving his face in with bricks (not forgetting sexual 'interference') and then putting his body (still alive according to the coroner) on a railway so the next train would cut him into pieces.

 

That sort of evil defies comprehension.

Children are very remarkable learning machines. To me, the evil that defies comprehension is that which allows and enables children of our society to learn to be murderers by the age of ten.

Sometimes the gravity of the crime pushes into that special little place that doesn't quite fit into the other pigeon holes... This is one of those cases.

 

Making them an example of evil is unjustified.

Tell that to Denise Bulger.

It is not the children who should be made the example of evil, but those of us who were responsible for their upbringing and for the society in which they lived.

A remarkable debate from what I thought originally was a pretty crappy thread (and still do on the whole in terms of subject) yet deathlisters have managed through some heavy and provocative persistence (HOS) to deliver some thoughtful outcomes, particularly this one. Oates is right: if we can't blame society there is no hope. Jamie Bulger's death is strewn with victims - himself, his family and his killers. What creates the circumstances that leads to something so terrible? It happened before with the Moors murders and possibly with Mary Bell. It will happen again. All very sad. Can we end this one, perhaps, now?

[in eternum+ 20]

children r innocent  they r pure and without blame  leave them out of this forum...

This kid was....

 

[snip!]

 

I think some kids are fair game on the death list.

Just to throw my two cents into this...

 

I don't think children are without agency. Kids aren't stupid. They may be highly impressionable, but to imply that society is entirely to blame whenever a child does something we (as society) can't believe that 'innocent' children could ever do, is too simplistic.

 

Those two boys may well have grown up in really horrible circumstances, and their parents may well be shite, but that doesn't mean they couldn't tell right from wrong; they knew what they were doing and chose to do it. (Rather cleverly) leading on from my earlier point, I find it somewhat staggering that the West awards children a status bordering on Holy, yet continues to believe that they are incapable of independent thought.

[Guest Guest]

children r innocent  they r pure and without blame  leave them out of this forum...

This kid was....

 

[snip!]

 

I think some kids are fair game on the death list.

Just to throw my two cents into this...

 

I don't think children are without agency. Kids aren't stupid. They may be highly impressionable, but to imply that society is entirely to blame whenever a child does something we (as society) can't believe that 'innocent' children could ever do, is too simplistic.

 

Those two boys may well have grown up in really horrible circumstances, and their parents may well be shite, but that doesn't mean they couldn't tell right from wrong; they knew what they were doing and chose to do it. (Rather cleverly) leading on from my earlier point, I find it somewhat staggering that the West awards children a status bordering on Holy, yet continues to believe that they are incapable of independent thought.

Interesting thread.

 

I think it's fair to say that Thompson and Venables were aware of the difference between right and wrong. I think the issue is that they were not brought up on the principle of it 'wrong to do wrong'.

 

Do a Google search and read about their backgrounds - their upbringing was not one of mum reading bedtime stories and dad helping with homework, all interspersed with Sunday afternoon family outings to the seaside. It was more the case of the kids being left to themselves, sexual abuse from Dad (in the case of Thompson), parental supplied 'entertainment' in the form of violent horror films and a seemingly complete lack of interest on the part of the parents that the two develop into anything like 'decent' people.

 

As distasteful as the thought may be, I'd venture that Thompson and Venables were as much a victim of the whole sorry saga as James Bulger. If having now left custody Thompson and Venables live law abiding lives then it really has to be considered a success.

 

Though clearly, the tabloids would have much preferred it for them to be locked up and the key thrown away.

 

And quite what this has to do with children on DL I have no idea...

[in eternum+ 20]

[snip! snip! snip!]

Interesting thread.

 

I think it's fair to say that Thompson and Venables were aware of the difference between right and wrong. I think the issue is that they were not brought up on the principle of it 'wrong to do wrong'.

 

Do a Google search and read about their backgrounds - their upbringing was not one of mum reading bedtime stories and dad helping with homework, all interspersed with Sunday afternoon family outings to the seaside. It was more the case of the kids being left to themselves, sexual abuse from Dad (in the case of Thompson), parental supplied 'entertainment' in the form of violent horror films and a seemingly complete lack of interest on the part of the parents that the two develop into anything like 'decent' people.

 

As distasteful as the thought may be, I'd venture that Thompson and Venables were as much a victim of the whole sorry saga as James Bulger. If having now left custody Thompson and Venables live law abiding lives then it really has to be considered a success.

 

Though clearly, the tabloids would have much preferred it for them to be locked up and the key thrown away.

 

And quite what this has to do with children on DL I have no idea...

Maybe. I do agree that upbringing (parents/friends/socialisation/etc) plays a big role. Absolutely. I just think it's a bit dangerous to say that it's the end-all-and-be-all of what controls our behaviour. After all, I don't think that anyone has a "perfect" upbringing, though unquestionably some have it worse - much worse - than others.

 

I wonder if they didn't do what they did precisely because they DID know that it was wrong.

Edited December 21, 2005 by in eternum+