Irish directed film on James Bulger comes under criticism for humanising the killers

donkeykong5

FrancieBrady wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Ah get over yourself. Jealousy terrible affliction.

Jealous?

Whatever. Your ridiculous posts about an amazing presenter says it all. Cheers Ben Sheppard for once again representing general publics views on prime time TV.

FrancieBrady

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Whatever. Your ridiculous posts about an amazing presenter says it all. Cheers Ben Sheppard for once again representing general publics views on prime time TV.

Never heard of this 'amazing presenter' before (nor want to again tbh) and I have been a member of the general public for over 50 years now. Go figure as they say.

KERSPLAT!

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Whatever. Your ridiculous posts about an amazing presenter says it all. Cheers Ben Sheppard for once again representing general publics views on prime time TV.

A ground breaking journalist, when he's not presenting Tipping Point that is...

donkeykong5

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Whatever. Your ridiculous posts about an amazing presenter says it all. Cheers Ben Sheppard for once again representing general publics views on prime time TV.

A ground breaking journalist, when he's not presenting Tipping Point that is...

Yeah agree. Versatile. Amazing guy.

Calltocall

Never has a criminal case stirred so much sadness/anger in me than the murder of James Bulger, to think of him alone and meeting that end still fills me with great sadness and despair, I remember the time well and over the years I have read into the case and wondered how could two ten year olds be so completely depraved, what went wrong in their upbringing to commit the act they did, millions of children have awful upbringings and yet don’t commit such heinous crimes. This crime was on a completely other level of depravity.

Possibly something can be learned from studying them & I understand people wanting to analyze the case to try to identify behavioral patterns which could prevent something like this happening again.

What’s interesting from reading about the pair since the crime took place is the concept of rehabilitation, the uk government invested huge sums of money into rehabilitating Venables, he was given special treatment and protected in juvenile detention, from all accounts he was a manipulative bully but the British governments policy was we will prove that venables can be rehabilitated and show that true rehabilitation is possible through our juvenile prison service, the reality is they failed miserably, Venables was ordered not to return to Liverpool, he regularly went on drug binges in the city, he then was caught with accessing violent child pornography, it’s an uncomfortable truth to this case that even after the best rehabilitation services, after huge sums of money invested into fixing Venables he could not be fixed and remains a deeply disturbed individual and raises the question that can a child who is capable of carrying out such a horrific act be mended and should they be allowed into society upon reaching adulthood, I’m not so sure.

Zorya

Grandeeod wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with revealing the interviews with these pair of fookers. It may be news to the the Millennials and the Directors can be included, but some older people need to get a hold of themselves and stop being so fooking anal about this little "short" film. It was a fooking horrific crime, but I really don't see the problem with exploring the roles and mindset of the pricks that did it.

To some extent I understand your angle. But this film, any film, is not really about getting at truth, or exploring mindsets. Ultimately it is about entertainment, of one sort or another.

The detective who investigated the crime describes the film as ''indecent'' but perhaps even more importantly says there are significant misrepresentations. Which is what one always gets when a director puts one shot against another in a cut.

As an aside, it must have been traumatic for the child actors to act out those scripts.

Is there a place called stop in art? Have you personally any limit where you say no? Could someone make a documentary trying to show the humanity of Larry Murphy, for example? I think - just personally - there is a place called stop.

"I think (the film) does not give a true depiction of Mrs Venables. Mrs Venables was a key party in supporting her son and encouraging him to tell the truth and I don't think that comes over whatsoever. It shows her being a yelling, screaming cow of a mother, which she certainly wasn't.''

Mr Kirby said the investigation worked hard to present certain elements of the prosecution case in a sensitive matter but that had been undermined by the graphic portrayal of the tragedy in Detainment.He added the boys were not questioned in the bleak conditions depicted and told the ECHO: "We went to inordinate lengths to make sure the interview rooms were freshly painted and drinks and crisps were on the table. We went the nth degree during the interviews and after the interviews to make sure they were being detained in a very hospitable environment."

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/detective-who-led-james-bulger-15623288

So, as is normal in all film there is director's bias, and the idea that it is an attempt to portray objective truth is false.

Gimme A Pound

There are simply some people who have a mission to deflect responsibility from the responsible parties at all costs. The tweets following the recent RTE programme about travellers particularly highlighted that for me.

There is an ideology that "society" (even though we are all part of society) or "the patriarchy" is the problem, not the individuals who carried out the acts. Deflection of blame is everywhere. It's a toxic damaging mindset that is long due deconstructing.

Zorya

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

There are simply some people who have a mission to deflect responsibility from the responsible parties at all costs. The tweets following the recent RTE programme about travellers particularly highlighted that for me.

There is an ideology that "society" (even though we are all part of society) or "the patriarchy" is the problem, not the individuals who carried out the acts. Deflection of blame is everywhere. It's a toxic damaging mindset that is long due deconstructing.

Victim politics. An important part of Identity Politics.
Careful using the word ''deconstruct''

FrancieBrady

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

There are simply some people who have a mission to deflect responsibility from the responsible parties at all costs. The tweets following the recent RTE programme about travellers particularly highlighted that for me.

There is an ideology that "society" (even though we are all part of society) or "the patriarchy" is the problem, not the individuals who carried out the acts. Deflection of blame is everywhere. It's a toxic damaging mindset that is long due deconstructing.

They were children when the crime was committed. They are now adults.
They were 10 years of age.
Were you 'responsible' at 10 years of age?

I don't believe that two boys, who were intrinsically 'evil', just happened to come together on that day in that place.

Some people have too much of a diet of Stephen King and the horror film genre in their lives.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Have deleted a bunch of nonsense posts that was massively derailing an otherwise interesting thread. A thread about two child killers from the 90s should never have had any right/left/liberal/conservative nonsense in it, let alone the icing on the cake that was something about islam.

Next person to bring in any nonsensical politics gets a ban.

Gimme A Pound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Some people have too much of a diet of Stephen King and the horror film genre in their lives.

Y'see again, deflection from what actually happened... which was as bad as, if not worse than, something out of a horror film or Stephen King novel.

Where is the indication of too much of such a diet? Is it not possible to be horrified by what happened to that child without being addicted to horror also?

The age thing is so ridiculous. Of course you can be responsible at 10. 10 is not toddler age. You can be silly, naive, stupid, but still aware of certain things - for example torturing and butchering a toddler to death. Of course I and the vast majority of people at age 10 knew this was wrong ffs (not that the thought would even occur to us) and if they weren't responsible, who was? Just thinking about when I was 10 - I used to blame my smaller cousins for stuff I did (like making a mess or being noisy when people were trying to sleep). I knew well what I was doing, I knew I was being a bit of a little sh1t, and I was calculating enough to work out this scheme.

People can just be innately bad (e.g. bullies) and their upbringing/environment will determine how far they'll go. Maybe one of those boys was not bad but led astray by the other, but he still went ahead with the worst thing a person can do.

begbysback

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

There are simply some people who have a mission to deflect responsibility from the responsible parties at all costs. The tweets following the recent RTE programme about travellers particularly highlighted that for me.

There is an ideology that "society" (even though we are all part of society) or "the patriarchy" is the problem, not the individuals who carried out the acts. Deflection of blame is everywhere. It's a toxic damaging mindset that is long due deconstructing.

The reason we are a more successful species than monkeys is that we can conceptualize, what you are saying here is that we shouldn’t use this ability, as we would then have to examine ourselves as individuals and as a society.

Bannasidhe

In 1995 an artist named Marcus Harvey had a painting entitled Myra in an exhibition called Sensation (keep in mind the artist did not name the exhibition or curate it).
The work was composed of a "pixalated" rendition of Hindley's famous mug shot where the pixels were made from prints from the cast's of children's hands.

There was absolute outrage.

Both Winnie Johnson (the mother of one of the victims) and Hindley herself wanted the painting removed from the exhibition to spare the feelings of the victim's families.
It was vandalized twice by other artists and had to be protected behind plexiglass with a security guard next to it.

The artist himself didn't help when he stated he believed Hindley wasn't involved in the actual murders.

I personally thought the piece was quite powerful and thought provoking because it was the face of an notorious child killer made from the prints of anonymous children's hands.

We all know who Hindley is - how many of us can name her victims?

That says a lot about our society.

FrancieBrady

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

Y'see again, deflection from what actually happened... which was as bad as, if not worse than, something out of a horror film or Stephen King novel.

Where is the indication of too much of such a diet? Is it not possible to be horrified by what happened to that child without being addicted to horror also?

The age thing is so ridiculous. Of course you can be responsible at 10. 10 is not toddler age. You can be silly, naive, stupid, but still aware of certain things - for example torturing and butchering a toddler to death. Of course I and the vast majority of people at age 10 knew this was wrong ffs (not that the thought would even occur to us) and if they weren't responsible, who was? Just thinking about when I was 10 - I used to blame my smaller cousins for stuff I did (like making a mess or being noisy when people were trying to sleep). I knew well what I was doing, I knew I was being a bit of a little sh1t, and I was calculating enough to work out this scheme.

People can just be innately bad (e.g. bullies) and their upbringing/environment will determine how far they'll go. Maybe one of those boys was not bad but led astray by the other, but he still went ahead with the worst thing a person can do.

Nobody is 'deflecting' from what happened. It happened a long time ago and the film is not about what happened but why it happened and what happened since.

Many many many things happen in the world that are horrific and sad and bad. This is just the usual ghouls thinking they own these events and will not allow anyone or anything to upset their opinion of those events.
It is typical of the outrage junkies to respond like that actually.

*I think your perception of a 10 year old's cognitive abilities is patently ridiculous tbh. Having just recently reared two children past that age.

Gimme A Pound

begbysback wrote: »

The reason we are a more successful species than monkeys is that we can conceptualize, what you are saying here is that we shouldn’t use this ability, as we would then have to examine ourselves as individuals and as a society.

Nope. What really gets me about these "Be open-minded!" people is how spiteful they are, and arrogant enough to tell people what they're thinking.

I don't like responsibility being deflected from the person who is responsible. It's not difficult to fathom. In the same way that I don't want people to say that a woman who was raped was to blame because of her clothing, because only the rapist was to blame... for raping her.

There are times a wider context needs to be considered, absolutely, but not absolutely every time. The devil doesn't always need an advocate.

Oh and I'm absolutely all for individuals who have carried out particular acts examining themselves. Not everything can be traced back to "society", much as some wish dearly for it.

Too many posts here smack of "oh you're appalled by torture and murder of a toddler and you aren't willing to deflect the responsibility from those who actually carried it out? How plebish of you!"

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In 1995 an artist named Marcus Harvey had a painting entitled Myra in an exhibition called Sensation (keep in mind the artist did not name the exhibition or curate it).
The work was composed of a "pixalated" rendition of Hindley's famous mug shot where the pixels were made from prints from the cast's of children's hands.

There was absolute outrage.

Both Winnie Johnson (the mother of one of the victims) and Hindley herself wanted the painting removed from the exhibition to spare the feelings of the victim's families.
It was vandalized twice by other artists and had to be protected behind plexiglass with a security guard next to it.

The artist himself didn't help when he stated he believed Hindley wasn't involved in the actual murders.

I personally thought the piece was quite powerful and thought provoking because it was the face of an notorious child killer made from the prints of anonymous children's hands.

We all know who Hindley is - how many of us can name her victims?

That says a lot about our society.

What? Speak for yourself there - plenty of people can name the moors murders victims. Only you are assuming (as it's convenient) that most can't - you can't use an assumption as something that says a lot (like what?) about society. Not seeing what point you're making really - you just listed examples of anger regarding something that was obviously just designed to be provocative and was in poor taste. Being art doesn't change that. People not being able to name the murder victims (it took place well over 50 years ago) doesn't change that either - it's enough that people know she was complicit in the abuse and murder of children.

eagle eye

Gold th

eagle eye

The more you talk about this the more airtime it's going to get.
My suggestion, if you are not happy about it, don't talk about it. Ignore is the way to end it.

seamus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We all know who Hindley is - how many of us can name her victims?

That says a lot about our society.

That reminds me about some documentary that was on over Xmas about her.

Part of the voiceover asked, "Why does she still captivate society today?" (dun dun dunn)

When the obvious answer is, "Because you keep making fvkcing documentaries about her!"

It's well known that being a killer is a better way to become famous than being a victim.

FrancieBrady

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

Nope. What really gets me about these "Be open-minded!" people is how spiteful they are, and arrogant enough to tell people what they're thinking.

I don't like responsibility being deflected from the person who is responsible. It's not difficult to fathom. In the same way that I don't want people to say that a woman who was raped was to blame because of her clothing, because only the rapist was to blame... for raping her.

There are times a wider context needs to be considered, absolutely, but not absolutely every time. The devil doesn't always need an advocate.

Oh and I'm absolutely all for individuals who have carried out particular acts examining themselves. Not everything can be traced back to "society", much as some wish dearly for it.

Too many posts here smack of "oh you're appalled by torture and murder of a toddler and you aren't willing to deflect the responsibility from those who actually carried it out? How plebish of you!"

Who is 'deflecting' here? The film is about the two killers. And the film maker, when he wasn't being interrupted by the outrage junkie, was saying he did not exonerate or make excuses for what they had done.

begbysback

You mean infamous?

Gimme A Pound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is 'deflecting' from what happened. It happened a long time ago and the film is not about what happened but why it happened and what happened since.

Many many many things happen in the world that are horrific and sad and bad. This is just the usual ghouls thinking they own these events and will not allow anyone or anything to upset their opinion of those events.
It is typical of the outrage junkies to respond like that actually.

*I think your perception of a 10 year old's cognitive abilities is patently ridiculous tbh. Having just recently reared two children past that age.

Well it's patently ridiculous also to pretend that 10-year-olds are so lacking in self awareness that they're not responsible for themselves ever - and in relation to a crime of this magnitude.

I refer to deflection due to people wanting to blame "society" and being more interested in sneering at people being upset and angered by the case (I'm not talking about the ones going on like lunatics) than considering what actually happened. I'm sure they think they're so enlightened and so much more sophisticated than those who get all "emotional" about a child being tortured and murdered, but they just come across as pretty cold.

FrancieBrady

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

Well it's patently ridiculous also to pretend that 10-year-olds are so lacking in self awareness that they're not responsible for themselves ever - and in relation to a crime of this magnitude.

I refer to deflection due to people wanting to blame "society" and being more interested in sneering at people being upset and angered by the case (I'm not talking about the ones going on like lunatics) than considering what actually happened. I'm sure they think they're so enlightened and so much more sophisticated than those who get all "emotional" about a child being tortured and murdered, but they just come across as pretty cold.

You are the one who wishes to deflect to the ghoulish nature of a crime that happened a long time ago.

Again, the film isn't about the details of the horrendous specifics of the crime. The film maker made it clear what it was about if you took the time to listen to him.

Just wondering what other censorship you would wish to engage in? Is it only about crimes that upset you specifically or is it all crime?

p.s. There is a reason we use the word 'minor' and a 10 year old has a long way to go in that category.
There is no way a 10 year is fully developed as a responsible adult.

Grandeeod

Zorya wrote: »

To some extent I understand your angle. But this film, any film, is not really about getting at truth, or exploring mindsets. Ultimately it is about entertainment, of one sort or another.

The detective who investigated the crime describes the film as ''indecent'' but perhaps even more importantly says there are significant misrepresentations. Which is what one always gets when a director puts one shot against another in a cut.

As an aside, it must have been traumatic for the child actors to act out those scripts.

Is there a place called stop in art? Have you personally any limit where you say no? Could someone make a documentary trying to show the humanity of Larry Murphy, for example? I think - just personally - there is a place called stop.



https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/detective-who-led-james-bulger-15623288

So, as is normal in all film there is director's bias, and the idea that it is an attempt to portray objective truth is false.

I would say there is a place called stop in art and I would have a limit where I'd say no. However IMO this particular short film isn't it.

Has Kirby seen the film or just the trailer? His comments are interesting and may well be true. Perhaps he's annoyed about the police portrayal? In relation to Venables mother, I'd like to see that question put to Lambe. But I'm not a fan of this outrage.

Bannasidhe

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

Nope. What really gets me about these "Be open-minded!" people is how spiteful they are, and arrogant enough to tell people what they're thinking.

I don't like responsibility being deflected from the person who is responsible. It's not difficult to fathom. In the same way that I don't want people to say that a woman who was raped was to blame because of her clothing, because only the rapist was to blame... for raping her.

There are times a wider context needs to be considered, absolutely, but not absolutely every time. The devil doesn't always need an advocate.

Oh and I'm absolutely all for individuals who have carried out particular acts examining themselves. Not everything can be traced back to "society", much as some wish dearly for it.

Too many posts here smack of "oh you're appalled by torture and murder of a toddler and you aren't willing to deflect the responsibility from those who actually carried it out? How plebish of you!"

What? Speak for yourself there - plenty of people can name the moors murders victims. Only you are assuming (as it's convenient) that most can't - you can't use an assumption as something that says a lot (like what?) about society. Not seeing what point you're making really - you just listed examples of anger regarding something that was obviously just designed to be provocative and was in poor taste. Being art doesn't change that. People not being able to name the murder victims (it took place well over 50 years ago) doesn't change that either - it's enough that people know she was complicit in the abuse and murder of children.

Care to dial back the old outrage there?
Maybe if you took a breath, calmed down, stopped pounding your keyboard you would see my point.

My point is we remember the killers and forget the victims. We, as a society, work in hand with killers to give what many of them want - infamy - and in stripping their victims of their identity. They become "the victim".

Can you name their victims?
No googling. Just name them?
How many killers can you name?
How many of their victims?

You have no idea what the work was "designed" to do. You are assuming. Doing the very thing you are outraged at me, apparently, doing. I bet you never even heard of it until I mentioned it. But here you are spluttering with indignation and moral outrage.

I'm happy for you that you think it's enough to know she was complicit and the names of her victims are forgotten.
It wasn't enough for me.
I learned their names because of that work.

Zorya

Grandeeod wrote: »

I would say there is a place called stop in art and I would have a limit where I'd say no. However IMO this particular short film isn't it.

Has Kirby seen the film or just the trailer? His comments are interesting and may well be true. Perhaps he's annoyed about the police portrayal? In relation to Venables mother, I'd like to see that question put to Lambe. But I'm not a fan of this outrage.

I don't know how much of the film Kirby saw. Fair point.

We agree then there is a place called stop, it is just a matter of disagreement as to where that place is. That is something people will have very individual takes on, and doesn't make one opinion more unacceptable than another. Both sides can be reasonably argued. Sans outrage.

I would never watch a film like this, or one about similar things. My psyche would not withstand it. But that's my choice/limitation. And if I made a film like this I would be fully aware from the outset of exactly what I was doing, in every single aspect, including being aware of the subtle thrill of being dangerous and controversial, and perhaps even becoming notorious. Lambe denied that - that is not honest.

FrancieBrady

Zorya wrote: »

I don't know how much of the film Kirby saw. Fair point.

We agree then there is a place called stop, it is just a matter of disagreement as to where that place is. That is something people will have very individual takes on, and doesn't make one opinion more unacceptable than another. Both sides can be reasonably argued. Sans outrage.

I would never watch a film like this, or one about similar things. My psyche would not withstand it. But that's my choice/limitation. And if I made a film like this I would be fully aware from the outset of exactly what I was doing, in every single aspect, including being aware of the subtle thrill of being dangerous and controversial, and perhaps even becoming notorious. Lambe denied that - that is not honest.

How do you know it is 'not honest'?

There are film makers who make stuff to titillate and provoke and then there are serious film makers who make responsible and earnest artwork.

Gimme A Pound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are the one who wishes to deflect to the ghoulish nature of a crime that happened a long time ago.

Again, the film isn't about the details of the horrendous specifics of the crime. The film maker made it clear what it was about if you took the time to listen to him.

Just wondering what other censorship you would wish to engage in? Is it only about crimes that upset you specifically or is it all crime?

p.s. There is a reason we use the word 'minor' and a 10 year old has a long way to go in that category.
There is no way a 10 year is fully developed as a responsible adult.

Do find where I said it should be censored. Leave out the putting words in my mouth as it's poor discussion. I am referring to what's being said here - not the film. By the way, as an aside, despite this idealistic notion that nothing should be censored ever, of course not everything can be aired - otherwise people could be as abusive and lying as they want.

Where the hell did i say 10-year-olds are as developed as adults? They're not so under developed that they're like toddlers is all i said. And they're obviously aware when they're hurting someone. It's disingenuous in the extreme to deny this.

I do agree that context should be examined - e.g. there was a documentary on paedophiles who have the feelings but haven't acted on them and just want help, which is on offer in Germany. Of course utter foaming at the mouth and allegations of paedophilia endorsement etc. I thought it was a very important topic to address. If they're helped, surely this could lead to a reduction in incidents.

But this - I'm not calling for a banning but what wide context could there be? I know that the child killer Mary Bell did a very similar thing and her own upbringing was appalling - so while i do think she was likely not a nice child, her upbringing caused her to act in more extreme a manner than if she had a loving, stable upbringing.

Maybe the above applies but already it appears that there has been bullsh1t exposed about the film as per link on Zorya's post. Sometimes people just do bad things - I don't know why this gets sneered at.

Omackeral

FrancieBrady wrote: »

p.s. There is a reason we use the word 'minor' and a 10 year old has a long way to go in that category.
There is no way a 10 year is fully developed as a responsible adult.

Agreed. However I would wager most 10 year olds have an idea of right and wrong and that hurting someone, nevermind killing someone, is most definitely in the latter category. The fact they tried to orchestrate and stage a train accident by leaving the poor mite on tracks shows a cunning as well.

I've always found the case fascinating, for want of a better word, from a societal standpoint. The "try them as adults" factor was divisive as emotions were running high but the law still had to be applied. The trial couldn't even take place in its own locale such was the grief and anger. You have the blame game running wild with demonisation of video nasties, you've the threat and undertaking of vigilantism, you had this real sense of innocence lost. It utterly shocked everyone. Still kinda does.

FrancieBrady

Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »

Do find where I said it should be censored. Leave out the putting words in my mouth as it's poor discussion. I am referring to what's being said here - not the film. By the way, as an aside, despite this idealistic notion that nothing should be censored ever, of course not everything can be aired - otherwise people could be as abusive and lying as they want.

Where the hell did i say 10-year-olds are as developed as adults? They're not so under developed that they're like toddlers is all i said. And they're obviously aware when they're hurting someone. It's disingenuous in the extreme to deny this.

I do agree that context should be examined - e.g. there was a documentary on paedophiles who have the feelings but haven't acted on them and just want help, which is on offer in Germany. Of course utter foaming at the mouth and allegations of paedophilia endorsement etc. I thought it was a very important topic to address. If they're helped, surely this could lead to a reduction in incidents.

But this - I'm not calling for a banning but what wide context could there be? I know that the child killer Mary Bell did a very similar thing and her own upbringing was appalling - so while i do think she was likely not a nice child, her upbringing caused her to act in more extreme a manner than if she had a loving, stable upbringing.

Maybe the above applies but already it appears that there has been bullsh1t exposed about the film as per link on Zorya's post. Sometimes people just do bad things - I don't know why this gets sneered at.

The obvious thing to say here is: don't go and see the film.

Other than that, I am bewildered as to what your point is here. Nobody has condoned or excused these killings, from what I have seen, including the film maker.

FrancieBrady

Omackeral wrote: »

Agreed. However I would wager most 10 year olds have an idea of right and wrong and that hurting someone, nevermind killing someone, is most definitely in the latter category. The fact they tried to orchestrate and stage a train accident by leaving the poor mite on tracks shows a cunning as well.

I've always found the case fascinating, for want of a better word, from a societal standpoint. The "try them as adults" factor was divisive as emotions were running high but the law still had to be applied. The trial couldn't even take place in its own locale such was the grief and anger. You have the blame game running wild with demonisation of video nasties, you've the threat and undertaking of vigilantism, you had this real sense of innocence lost. It utterly shocked everyone. Still kinda does.

Having reared children and having taken them through school, I have seen many many of them get involved in stuff, they know to be wrong, totally wrong) but do not have the ability or cognitive maturity to stop what is happening. I have also seen many involve themselves in things they know to be wrong, but that is the thrill. Curiosity killed the cat etc.
I see my role as a parent and member of the community to coach them through these phases of their lives. That is why 'minors' remain the responsibility of adults after all.