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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

12467…11

Comments

  • #152
    donkeykong5
    Registered Users Posts: 7,259 ✭✭✭donkeykong5


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

    Jealous? :confused::confused:
    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.


  • #153
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,905 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #154
    KERSPLAT!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,152 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • #155
    donkeykong5
    Registered Users Posts: 7,259 ✭✭✭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.


  • #156
    Calltocall
    Registered Users Posts: 340 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭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.


  • #158
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭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.


  • #159
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭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'' :)


  • #160
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,905 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #161
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,642 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭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.


  • #163
    begbysback
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭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.


  • #164
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #165
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,905 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #166
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭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.


  • #167
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,930 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Gold th


  • #168
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,930 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #169
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #170
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,905 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #171
    begbysback
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭begbysback


    You mean infamous?


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭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.


  • #173
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,905 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #174
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,209 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #175
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #176
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭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.


  • #177
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,905 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #178
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭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.


  • #179
    Omackeral
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #180
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,905 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,905 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #182
    RWCNT
    Registered Users Posts: 1,430 ✭✭✭RWCNT


    donkeykong5 wrote: »
    "Filmmaker " doing the rounds. Apparently hes on today FM at 3.45pm today.

    Why do you keep on putting that word in quotation marks? He made a film.


  • #183
    Omackeral
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    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.

    Kids bully and act the bollox for a variety of reasons. They don't generally kill though because they know it's beyond the pale. However, if society starts hanging kids, as many called for, it's pretty bleak. I don't think it was ever a clear cut and dry case. The fact one of them had to be given a fresh identity again in adulthood is sickening though.


  • #184
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    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.
    I think when you're demonstrating how open-minded you are, you should also bring this into how you interpret people's tone. In my post there was no outrage, spluttering, shoutiness, keyboard thumping, getting worked up to the point of needing to take a breath - that's all in *your* head. On the other hand, your own tone in the above comment is plainly condescending and sneery. And pretty insulting. Especially when you can be quite forceful yourself, and have likely experienced people being dismissive of you.
    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".
    Fair point. Shur you won't know whether I've googled or not but I do know about the moors murders. Not about other victims of notorious killers though in fairness. But plenty of people do, don't discount them.
    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.
    You've lost that bet I'm afraid. I was well aware of it. It was a remarkable piece of work but of course it was going to upset people and he knew it. What point was he making? Is it so unreasonable to be of the opinion that it was in poor taste to make a giant picture of Myra Hindley using children's hand prints?


  • #185
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,905 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Omackeral wrote: »
    Kids bully and act the bollox for a variety of reasons. They don't generally kill though because they know it's beyond the pale. However, if society starts hanging kids, as many called for, it's pretty bleak. I don't think it was ever a clear cut and dry case. The fact one of them had to be given a fresh identity again in adulthood is sickening though.

    They don't generally kill, that is a fact. But it can happen.

    Re: the rest of these lads lives, I think the event and the ensuing events make it very difficult to say what behaviour is caused by those events and what their lives would have been like had those events not happened.
    While not for one minute condoning/excusing what they did, the extreme bubble they have lived in since could not be healthy.


  • #186
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    They don't generally kill, that is a fact. But it can happen.
    Yeah and they're aware they're doing it. To imply a child has zero responsibility by age 10 as you did earlier is way too dishonest.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,209 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    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.

    I have no problem with reasonable argument, but I'm sure you'll agree that there are a lot of unreasonable arguments on both sides.

    There is no evidence that Lambe got a subtle thrill of being dangerous and controversial and perhaps even becoming notorious. I accept that from a creative point of view, it is always in the interests of a Director to extract as much emotion as possible from the source material. But remember that the source material in this case is real life and not the made up in the mind variety. I don't think its a case of Lambe reinventing the story or ramping it up in exaggerated content. Apparently there are minor differences, but the basic concept is based on what was actually said by the two lads.

    The outrage behind this issue is more based on - how dare a filmmaker produce a story on this awful event. How dare the filmmaker try to explore a different angle, despite NOT condoning the guilty parties. How dare the filmmaker not consult Jamie Bolgers parents. Personally if it was me I'd have done only one thing different. I'd have spoken to Jamies parents and told them I was doing the film and why. If they disagreed, I would have done the film anyway so at least that particular negative was dealt with. The scariest film you will ever make is one based on a real life horrific event. The saddest film you will ever make is one based on a real life tragic event. It is perfectly understandable that human beings will be upset at the portrayal of difficult real life events, but I don't believe that creative people behind these portrayals should be exposed to any unreasonable commentary.


  • #188
    Omackeral
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    Grandeeod wrote: »

    How dare the filmmaker not consult Jamie Bolgers parents. Personally if it was me I'd have done only one thing different. I'd have spoken to Jamies parents and told them I was doing the film and why.

    Again, not to dispute any of your points but it's James. The child's name was James and not Jamie.


  • #189
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,209 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    Omackeral wrote: »
    Again, not to dispute any of your points but it's James. The child's name was James and not Jamie.

    Yes his name is James, but in 1993 he was frequently referred to as Jamie Bulger. I was in my 20s when it happened and the event is etched in my memory as the Jamie Bulger case. I assume some family member refrred to the little lad by that name. I doubt the media invented it.


  • #190
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,407 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Omackeral wrote: »
    Again, not to dispute any of your points but it's James. The child's name was James and not Jamie.

    Yes his name is James, but in 1993 he was frequently referred to as Jamie Bulger. I was in my 20s when it happened and the event is etched in my memory as the Jamie Bulger case. I assume some family member refrred to the little lad by that name. I doubt the media invented it.
    Actually, I heard an interview with his mother Denise recently and she was saying how angry it made her that the media kept getting his name wrong. According to his mother, his name was James and he was never known as Jamie by his family. James Bulger.


  • #191
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    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.
    I like the way you addressed my other points.

    I never said people condoned or excused the killings. I'm saying there are folk who are too keen to find an answer outside of those who were actually responsible because that would mean having to agree with people who say they were evil. Some people are just horrible cruel people - that's their character, whether caused by a personality disorder or not. "Evil" is just a description - don't be so fixated on a word.

    People say "Those who just dismiss it as evil don't want to face the reality that non evil people do bad things" which i agree with, but others are also unwilling to face reality that there are just some bad people out there with no outside causes of this.

    There are also people sneering at folk for being upset by the case and it makes them look pretty damn cold.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Omackeral
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Yes his name is James, but in 1993 he was frequently referred to as Jamie Bulger. I was in my 20s when it happened and the event is etched in my memory as the Jamie Bulger case. I assume some family member refrred to the little lad by that name. I doubt the media invented it.

    They did actually. His mother has stated many times he was never known by that moniker and that it hurt her to see them reporting his name wrong.


  • #193
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,905 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »
    Yeah and they're aware they're doing it. To imply a child has zero responsibility by age 10 as you did earlier is way too dishonest.

    Well I will just take it as fact now that you are as bad as other outrage junkies. I never said they had 'zero' responsibility.

    By the way, if my 10 year old breaks the law, I would be rightfully imo, held responsible. And prosecuted if I had failed knowingly in that responsibility.

    A wee bit more complicated than your: 'they were evil, that is all' comfort blanket.


  • #194
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Well I will just take it as fact now that you are as bad as other outrage junkies. I never said they had 'zero' responsibility.
    You attributed numerous things to me that I didn't say or imply so don't be such a hypocrite. One of the first things you said to me was "Were you 'responsible' at 10 years of age?" Air quotes for responsible as if it's an alien concept - so yes, it did look like you were saying a 10-year-old has zero responsibility.
    By the way, if my 10 year old breaks the law, I would be rightfully imo, held responsible. And prosecuted if I had failed knowingly in that responsibility.

    A wee bit more complicated than your: 'they were evil, that is all' comfort blanket.
    I never even implied that's my view so throwing that pot shot just makes you look spiteful and a hypocrite again, as well as dishonest. Why the hostility towards people who don't attack or insult you, just disagree with you?

    It's common among so many "Be tolerant" folk. They may be more articulate but they are as unpleasant as the right-wingers foaming at the mouth.


  • #195
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,905 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »
    You attributed numerous things to me that I didn't say or imply so don't be such a hypocrite. One of the first things you said to me was "Were you 'responsible' at 10 years of age?" Air quotes for responsible as if it's an alien concept - so yes, it did look like you were saying a 10-year-old has zero responsibility.

    I never even implied that's my view so throwing that pot shot just makes you look spiteful and a hypocrite again, as well as dishonest. Why the hostility towards people who don't attack or insult you, just disagree with you?

    It's common among so many "Be tolerant" folk. They may be more articulate but they are as unpleasant as the right-wingers foaming at the mouth.

    So what is your point?


  • #196
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    So what is your point?
    Crikey. :eek:

    Ok, here's ONE post: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109034155&postcount=191


  • #197
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,905 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »
    Crikey. :eek:

    Ok, here's ONE post: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109034155&postcount=191

    Basically, they were evil. That is all there is?

    So, as said, this film is not for you. Or any discussion.


  • #198
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Basically, they were evil. That is all there is?

    So, as said, this film is not for you. Or any discussion.

    That's not it, as you know.

    You had your posts comprehensively addressed and dismissed the poster with a faux-naif one liner.


  • #199
    Liamario
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,094 ✭✭✭Liamario


    Brentley Obedient Myth wrote: »
    Yeah and they're aware they're doing it. To imply a child has zero responsibility by age 10 as you did earlier is way too dishonest.

    How much responsibility do they have?


  • #200
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,905 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Candie wrote: »
    That's not it, as you know.

    You had your posts comprehensively addressed and dismissed the poster with a faux-naif one liner.

    What?

    Here is the post they described as summing up their point:

    I never said people condoned or excused the killings. I'm saying there are folk who are too keen to find an answer outside of those who were actually responsible because that would mean having to agree with people who say they were evil. Some people are just horrible cruel people - that's their character, whether caused by a personality disorder or not. "Evil" is just a description - don't be so fixated on a word.

    People say "Those who just dismiss it as evil don't want to face the reality that non evil people do bad things" which i agree with, but others are also unwilling to face reality that there are just some bad people out there with no outside causes of this.

    There are also people sneering at folk for being upset by the case and it makes them look pretty damn cold.


  • #201
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Basically, they were evil. That is all there is?
    Nope, not in the least. And you're just being spiteful.

    All my posts plainly indicate i don't think that's all there is.

    It appears you are just annoyed by disagreement with you - and what better way to reconcile that than to sneer, dismiss and make up things not said (while of course getting all indignant if you get a whiff of same towards you).


  • Advertisement
Advertisement