Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

12357…19

Comments

  • #122
    Mad_maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    kneemos wrote: »
    Wish people would drop this "evil" bull****. Like it's an explanation for anything.

    So you don't think that some people are evil?


  • #123
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Hmm. Is that much of a distinction? How do we tell the monstrous from the non monstrous except in actions?

    I guess that's a question for wiser heads than me because I don't know. If a kid has no empathy and doesn't understand how his actions affect others, is he evil or is he a broken person who does evil things? Is his ability to depersonalize another person enough to commit such acts of depravity evil in itself, or only evil because of the actions he visited on them? If he is only capable of the acts but never does them, is he still evil? Where does it begin, in the mind or in the act and does the distinction even matter?

    I pity the people who have to unravel all this, it must take some toll on them. I don't know, I can't know. Possibly the psychs who worked with the killers don't know. And I really doubt anything new or revealing is going to be exposed in this guys film either.


  • #124
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,769 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Candie wrote: »
    Many have said they do. Most people make the distinction between acts that are evil in their depravity, and the concept of evil inherent in a person.

    Those boys aren't monsters, thats the tricky thing. But what they did is monstrous.

    The film maker was quite clear about his opinion of the crime.


  • #125
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    The Black Oil wrote: »
    Yep, I saw this on a UK forum in 2010 when the issue with Venables and child abuse imagery arose. It's a case that's almost impossible to discuss without the seething anger being front and centre, obscuring debate.

    Nothing like a moral panic and bit of groupthink. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/feb/06/bulger.ukcrime
    Yeah that's it - horror at a toddler being tortured and butchered is just an auld bandwagon-jumping.

    You're not automatically a Sun-reading pitchfork-wielding pleb if you're sickened to the pit of your stomach by such a crime you know. You can also be an educated, critically thinking moderate with balanced views.

    I find it dismaying the way there can be more concern over what people say about something than what actually happened. This isn't the only such case. Like people getting so bothered about the use of the word "evil" - it's just a descriptive term for a cruel person, and some people ARE just cruel; they don't have to be created.

    People keep saying they want to find out what led to it - hasn't it been established that it was background plus personality? What more is there to learn? It's not like it's a psychological study.


  • #126
    Neyite
    Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    brendanwalsh wrote: »
    It's scary how we have been desensitised to these horrific crimes. At the time this happened it was one of the most vulgar murders ever to take place. Only a few months ago two dublin teenagers did the same thing to that poor little Polish girl and there was barely a mention of it in the papers.

    My understanding is bulger and venabless have both gone on to offend again.

    Bulger is the name of the victim. Venables has reoffended a few times and also has compromised his new identity on several occasions leading to expensive new identities being created for him. He's supposed to have fathered a child. Thompson on the other hand has never reoffended and is rumoured to be in a same sex relationship and his partner knows who he used to be. The general consensus from some of the officers and other experts who were involved in the case and the trial, was that Thompson was the more calculated and devious one that showed no remorse. So based on that, it might be that the reason Thompson has never come to police attention is that he's just fine with what he did.

    I read a book by the police psychologist who helped with the investigation from the start. It's not something I could ever read again. Especially since I had my own boy. It was horrific and you wonder how two boys turned out that way.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Charmeleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Charmeleon


    Candie wrote: »
    I guess that's a question for wiser heads than me because I don't know. If a kid has no empathy and doesn't understand how his actions affect others, is he evil or is he a broken person who does evil things? Is his ability to depersonalize another person enough to commit such acts of depravity evil in itself, or only evil because of the actions he visited on them? If he is only capable of the acts but never does them, is he still evil? Where does it begin, in the mind or in the act and does the distinction even matter?

    I pity the people who have to unravel all this, it must take some toll on them. I don't know, I can't know. Possibly the psychs who worked with the killers don't know. And I really doubt anything new or revealing is going to be exposed in this guys film either.

    Some people are born with a disposition that finds strong emotions in others amusing, whether it is a look of shock at saying extremely offensive things or enjoyment at witnessing humiliation. Some people get enjoyment by experiencing others in severe pain. They don’t learn this, it is a personality disorder and in its extreme forms it is evil.


  • #128
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    Charmeleon wrote: »
    Some people are born with a disposition that finds strong emotions in others amusing, whether it is a look of shock at saying extremely offensive things or enjoyment at witnessing humiliation. Some people get enjoyment by experiencing others in severe pain. They don’t learn this, it is a personality disorder and in its extreme forms it is evil.

    If they never act on it, are they still evil? Does the capability alone make someone evil, or is it the act that is evil?

    I'm not saying I know, just that the concept of evil is a difficult one to pin down.


  • #129
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,063 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    I have not yet had the opportunity to see the film. I knew it was being made and am very excited to see it from a film making point of view. I fooking detest the censorship of Film or TV production. There are very many sensitive subjects that are very rarely portrayed on screen, but inevitably they become controversial issues once they appear. I thought the Ben Sheppard lad carried an agenda that is populist. He suggested that Vincent Lambe was making this film to be controversial and further his career. Now maybe Vincent is, but I can't accuse him of that based on what I know. From a personal point of view, I was involved in a production many years ago that broached a very difficult subject and it finished a particular career. It was never ever intended to be a platform for a career launch. But neither was it expected to be a a hand grenade that sank one. It was on a much smaller scale but attracted similar opinions and discussion.

    While I abhor the crime committed against Jamie Bulger and I was personally in a very difficult Family law case when it happened,that had me worrying about a child I'd been separated from, I will not condemn the actions of film makers to portray aspects of the case. I'd like to think that its a brave piece of film making and that Vincent Lambe isn't trying to take the piss out of us.


  • #130
    Charmeleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Charmeleon


    Candie wrote: »
    If they never act on it, are they still evil? Does the capability alone make someone evil, or is it the act that is evil?

    I'm not saying I know, just that the concept of evil is a difficult one to pin down.

    Yes, their motivation is an evil intent, Graham Dwyer was evil even before he fulfilled his fantasy of stabbing a woman to death.

    Likewise, the same applies at the other extreme.


  • #131
    donkeykong5
    Registered Users Posts: 7,259 ✭✭✭donkeykong5


    Charmeleon wrote: »
    Candie wrote: »
    If they never act on it, are they still evil? Does the capability alone make someone evil, or is it the act that is evil?

    I'm not saying I know, just that the concept of evil is a difficult one to pin down.

    Yes, their motivation is an evil intent, Graham Dwyer was evil even before he fulfilled his fantasy of stabbing a woman to death.

    Likewise, the same applies at the other extreme.
    Graham Dwyer's is evil personified. Probably like the murderers of James bulger as a child.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    donkeykong5 wrote: »
    Graham Dwyer's is evil personified. Probably like the murderers of James bulger as a child.

    The thing about using terms like evil is then we get into questions like were they always evil? Were the born evil? Were they evil babies? Evil toddlers?

    Can it not then be argued they cannot be blamed? Their evilness was predestined.

    Where does evil come from? Are the possessed by evil?

    Did something make them evil? Can you catch evil?
    How do we deal with evil?
    Exorcism?

    Or do we say they are damaged? Sick even.
    And try to determine what caused that damage/illness?
    Find ways to cure it?
    Find ways to determine if it is curable?
    Not all sickness' have a cure.

    A psychologist once show me this test she said is used to determine is someone is a psychopath. She suddenly clapped her hand an inch fro my face to see how if I would react. I did - so apparently I'm not.
    Now this woman worked with children. And said that yes, sometimes they do that to see if they react. And if they don't then what I asked? Further tests.
    What if you have a child who all the tests say is a psychopath but who hasn't committed any crime?
    They have the potential to commit crimes - but be honest, a lot of us do should we find ourselves certain in the circumstances... when the blood is running hot.

    But psychopaths don't do hot running blood do they?
    Are they evil?
    Do we lock them up before they can commit a crime ?

    As for this film. I won't be going to see it. But I have seen films about Brady and Hindley. Their crimes were horrific. The families of their victims endured living hells. Where is the outrage? Why is that different? Is it because Hindley and Brady were adults?

    Every night on multiple TV channels we have murder and rape as as the central part of our "whodunnit" entertainment - in fact looking at the CSI/Law and Order/Criminal Minds etc franchises I sometimes wondered how there are any 20 something females left in the U.S. given the frequency in which they are brutally killed.

    Yes, I know it's fiction. The individual stories are fictions. Murders and rapes aren't.

    Think about it. Nightly on our TV's in our living rooms we have reenactments of rapes and murders and we call that entertainment. Do we have any sympathy for the families of real victims who may see these things?

    Do we condemn them?

    Or do we instead wonder how come Horatio hasn't been burned to a crisp living in Miami-Dade and ponder if he is wearing SPF 1000 and would someone ever shove those effing sunglasses up his hole?

    BTW - I stopped watching those shows years ago. One night I realised I couldn't stomach seeing one more murder of a young woman for my "entertainment" - even fictional.


  • #133
    donkeykong5
    Registered Users Posts: 7,259 ✭✭✭donkeykong5


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    TomSweeney wrote: »
    <snip>

    <snip>
    Do you think as Ben Sheppard asked this morning on TV that the murdered childs parents should have been told that there was a film been done about their child?


  • #134
    sk8erboii
    Site Banned Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭sk8erboii


    donkeykong5 wrote: »
    Do you think as Ben Sheppard asked this morning on TV that the murdered childs parents should have been told that there was a film been done about their child?

    Ah classic. So because someone made a documentary about whitey bulger it means liberals are now satanic pedophile worshippers.

    Epic leap of logic there.

    Can also refer you to a psych if you want


  • #135
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,063 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    donkeykong5 wrote: »
    Do you think as Ben Sheppard asked this morning on TV that the murdered childs parents should have been told that there was a film been done about their child?

    Thats the decision the film makers made. You can ask or you cannot ask in situations like this. There is no particular process apart from some respect. This particular film isn't an re-enactment of the event anyway, it's focused on the guilty parties and subsequent interviews. Had Jamies parents been asked, they would have said no most likely and then it boils down to the film makers respect for their wishes. I'll meet you as far as the fact that yes the parents of Jamie should have at least been told. After that, I say fair game to a degree. I'm long in the tooth enough to believe that film making on any level should not be censored once its not libelous. Offense etc etc is on the table for discussion and nothing else.


  • #136
    donkeykong5
    Registered Users Posts: 7,259 ✭✭✭donkeykong5


    Yes or no would have done pal. ! I repeat Ben sheppards question on TV this morning. Should the murdered childs parents have been informed that there was a film been made by an Irish filmmaker about their child?


  • #137
    donkeykong5
    Registered Users Posts: 7,259 ✭✭✭donkeykong5


    Yes or no would have done pal. ! I repeat Ben sheppards question on TV this morning. Should the murdered childs parents have been informed that there was a film been made by an Irish filmmaker about their child?


  • #138
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    People are upset at the notion of "humanising" Venables and Thompson though - this implies a level of empathising. I know there have always been people who enjoy the usual bluster when it comes to this case, and I'm not interested in doing that, but I still understand the anger, and I'm not comfortable with the facts of the case getting lost due to focus on "What about what the killers were going through".

    I know it's likely they had terrible upbringings, but while that didn't help, what they did goes beyond their backgrounds. They were the actions of people lacking empathy and enjoying the suffering of someone helpless.

    They are human but what they did lacked humanity - I don't know how their age mitigates it. Being 10 explains a lot of stupid **** but not this. They were bad people, and while they likely had/have something wrong with them, being terrible people was part of it.


  • #139
    Charmeleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Charmeleon


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The thing about using terms like evil is then we get into questions like were they always evil? Were the born evil? Were they evil babies? Evil toddlers?

    Can it not then be argued they cannot be blamed? Their evilness was predestined.

    If they are criminally insane then yes, that is exactly how it is treated. They can’t understand the consequences of their actions and can’t be deterred by the threat of punishment.

    Psychopaths on the other hand do know what they are doing is considered wrong and that they would be punished. Otherwise they wouldn’t conceal their crimes so carefully.
    It is the ability to understand that their actions are deplored that makes them culpable. They can make intelligent decisions.
    Where does evil come from? Are the possessed by evil?

    Did something make them evil? Can you catch evil?
    How do we deal with evil?
    Exorcism?

    Did something give a person ‘perfect pitch’ or make them gifted at maths? Yes, the chemical and physical organisation of the brain during development.
    Or do we say they are damaged? Sick even.
    And try to determine what caused that damage/illness?
    Find ways to cure it?
    Find ways to determine if it is curable?
    Not all sickness' have a cure.

    There is no known cure for being ambitious vs carefree, personality traits are very robust.
    A psychologist once show me this test she said is used to determine is someone is a psychopath. She suddenly clapped her hand an inch fro my face to see how if I would react. I did - so apparently I'm not.
    Now this woman worked with children. And said that yes, sometimes they do that to see if they react. And if they don't then what I asked? Further tests.
    What if you have a child who all the tests say is a psychopath but who hasn't committed any crime?
    They have the potential to commit crimes - but be honest, a lot of us do should we find ourselves certain in the circumstances... when the blood is running hot.

    If they described that as a test they should be removed from employment. There are screening techniques that might loosely indicate if a particular person among many is worth looking at more closely. That tells you very little upfront. But this sounds hard to believe.


  • #140
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,769 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »
    People are upset at the notion of "humanising" Venables and Thompson though - this implies a level of empathising. I know there have always been people who enjoy the usual bluster when it comes to this case, and I'm not interested in doing that, but I still understand the anger, and I'm not comfortable with the facts of the case getting lost due to focus on "What about what the killers were going through".

    I know it's likely they had terrible upbringings, but while that didn't help, what they did goes beyond their backgrounds. They were the actions of people lacking empathy and enjoying the suffering of someone helpless.

    They are human but what they did lacked humanity - I don't know how their age mitigates it. Being 10 explains a lot of stupid **** but not this. They were bad people, and while they likely had/have something wrong with them, being terrible people was part of it.

    So, why did they lack empathy, have they found empathy?

    Lots of questions not answered by, 'they were evil...full stop.'
    The film maker tried to explain that he had an angle he wanted to pursue but kept getting interrupted by the outrage junkie on the sofa. At least the lady presenter seemed interested in teasing out his motive but the junkie won the day.


  • #141
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Charmeleon wrote: »
    If they are criminally insane then yes, that is exactly how it is treated. They can’t understand the consequences of their actions and can’t be deterred by the threat of punishment.

    Psychopaths on the other hand do know what they are doing is considered wrong and that they would be punished. Otherwise they wouldn’t conceal their crimes so carefully.
    It is the ability to understand that their actions are deplored that makes them culpable. They can make intelligent decisions.



    Did something give a person ‘perfect pitch’ or make them gifted at maths? Yes, the chemical and physical organisation of the brain during development.



    There is no known cure for being ambitious vs carefree, personality traits are very robust.



    If they described that as a test they should be removed from employment. There are screening techniques that might loosely indicate if a particular person among many is worth looking at more closely. That tells you very little upfront. But this sounds hard to believe.

    I agree - it is extremely complex.

    Too complex to scream EVIL and have that be the last word.

    I thought the test was complete ****e tbh - but don't worry, this person no longer works in Ireland. She has a well paid gig with an international organisation which has been mired in scandal in recent years.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    donkeykong5
    Registered Users Posts: 7,259 ✭✭✭donkeykong5


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »
    People are upset at the notion of "humanising" Venables and Thompson though - this implies a level of empathising. I know there have always been people who enjoy the usual bluster when it comes to this case, and I'm not interested in doing that, but I still understand the anger, and I'm not comfortable with the facts of the case getting lost due to focus on "What about what the killers were going through".

    I know it's likely they had terrible upbringings, but while that didn't help, what they did goes beyond their backgrounds. They were the actions of people lacking empathy and enjoying the suffering of someone helpless.

    They are human but what they did lacked humanity - I don't know how their age mitigates it. Being 10 explains a lot of stupid **** but not this. They were bad people, and while they likely had/have something wrong with them, being terrible people was part of it.

    So, why did they lack empathy, have they found empathy?

    Lots of questions not answered by, 'they were evil...full stop.'
    The film maker tried to explain that he had an angle he wanted to pursue but kept getting interrupted by the outrage junkie on the sofa. At least the lady presenter seemed interested in teasing out his motive but the junkie won the day.
    Outraged junkie on the sofa. What are you on about pal. ?


  • #143
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    So, why did they lack empathy, have they found empathy?

    Lots of questions not answered by, 'they were evil...full stop.'
    The film maker tried to explain that he had an angle he wanted to pursue but kept getting interrupted by the outrage junkie on the sofa. At least the lady presenter seemed interested in teasing out his motive but the junkie won the day.
    Do you think the documentary can answer those questions? Will it offer a complex psychological assessment? I mean we know they had crap upbringings, but what explains the crossing of the line that others don't do, even with similar upbringings? Being terrible people (people can be just bad - we all know them), having a personality disorder... only they were responsible for what they did though.


  • #144
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,769 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »
    Do you think the documentary can answer those questions? Will it offer a complex psychological assessment? I mean we know they had crap upbringings, but what explains the crossing of the line that others don't do, even with similar upbringings? Being terrible people (people can be just bad - we all know them), having a personality disorder... only they were responsible for what they did though.

    He is entitled to have a go. I guarantee it will be more earnest and worthwhile than the reams of garbage printed about this case over the years, consumed by those whom the tabloids prey on for survival.


  • #145
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,769 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    donkeykong5 wrote: »
    Outraged junkie on the sofa. What are you on about pal. ?

    An 'outrage junkie' is different to an 'outraged junkie'.

    I was referring to the ludicrous male presenter. Can't be bothered memorising his name.


  • #146
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,063 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    So, why did they lack empathy, have they found empathy?

    Lots of questions not answered by, 'they were evil...full stop.'
    The film maker tried to explain that he had an angle he wanted to pursue but kept getting interrupted by the outrage junkie on the sofa. At least the lady presenter seemed interested in teasing out his motive but the junkie won the day.

    I agree. Once again I haven't seen the film, but I was aware of it up to at least two years ago. Todays interview was lopsided. Sheppard zoned in on the absolutely populist angle and outrage that we are seeing a lot of here to a degree. This entire thread is bogged down in a historic mindset that simply accepted "Evil" as an excuse along with an easily rented film called Childs Play.

    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.


  • #147
    donkeykong5
    Registered Users Posts: 7,259 ✭✭✭donkeykong5


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    donkeykong5 wrote: »
    Outraged junkie on the sofa. What are you on about pal. ?

    An 'outrage junkie' is different to an 'outraged junkie'.

    I was referring to the ludicrous male presenter. Can't be bothered memorising his name.
    Ben Sheppard pal. How dare you call him a junkie. Maybe look in the mirror. Truth hurts. Your comments re ben are absolute nonsense.


  • #148
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,058 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    They are humans but what they did was incredibly inhuman. Why they did it will never truly be known, but putting it down to them being "evil monsters" is simplistic nonsense for the tabloids to drool over.


  • #149
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,769 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    donkeykong5 wrote: »
    Ben Sheppard pal. How dare you call him a junkie. Maybe look in the mirror. Truth hurts. Your comments re ben are absolute nonsense.

    All he wanted to talk about was various hues of outrage about making the film, not what the film was about or what the motivation was.

    I.E. he is an outrage junkie. It sells, obviously


  • #150
    donkeykong5
    Registered Users Posts: 7,259 ✭✭✭donkeykong5


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    donkeykong5 wrote: »
    Ben Sheppard pal. How dare you call him a junkie. Maybe look in the mirror. Truth hurts. Your comments re ben are absolute nonsense.

    All he wanted to talk about was various hues of outrage about making the film, not what the film was about or what the motivation was.

    I.E. he is an outrage junkie. It sells, obviously
    Ah get over yourself. Jealousy terrible affliction.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,769 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    donkeykong5 wrote: »
    Ah get over yourself. Jealousy terrible affliction.

    Jealous? :confused::confused:


Advertisement