Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

the sir jimmy savile obe thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Venables and Thompson weren't normal kids. They had family lives where they'd witnessed and been subjected to violence over a long period of time, some of it extreme. Not violence in terms of the smackings that most kids in the 80s were subjected to. Their homelives were chaotic and were a fundamental reason for their offending. The case of the two brothers in Doncaster which has a hair's breadth from becoming a similar murder bore the same hallmarks. They were from extreme environments. This is not a guarantee of extreme behaviour but makes it much more likely. Take 100 kids and put them in Thompson and Venable's situations and let's say 20 of them go onto do something very violent. Take the same hundred kids and put them in a loving home and you change that number to ,say, 2.

I'd say they were normal kids - When the papers went round Liverpool interviewing anyone who'd give them the time of day, didn't some local scal make the point that "There's nothing special about them, they're just your average scruff like us"? I'm sure they did. They were normal kids for that place and that time.
 
I'd say they were normal kids - When the papers went round Liverpool interviewing anyone who'd give them the time of day, didn't some local scal make the point that "There's nothing special about them, they're just your average scruff like us"? I'm sure they did. They were normal kids for that place and that time.

Read their backgrounds. They were not average scruffs. I'll concede that int his article it does make a significant distinction betweent the two families.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/01/bulger.familyandrelationships

Thompson was a member of what can only be described as a terribly dysfunctional family. The fifth of seven children, he proved as difficult to his mother as the rest of her progeny. Ann Thompson had been deserted by her husband five years before the killing of Jamie Bulger, and in the week after he left the family home burned down in an accidental fire. Left on her own, Thompson sought consolation in drink and was often to be found in the bar in Higson's Top House rather than looking after the children in her chaotic home.
There it was bedlam. The author Blake Morrison obtained notes from an NSPCC case conference on the Thompson family. "The Thompson report is a series of violent incidents," he reported, "none of them in itself enough to justify the kids being taken into care but the sum of them appalling. The boys, it's said, grew up 'afraid of each other'. They bit, hammered, battered, tortured each other."

The report is full of violent instances, with details of such incidents as Ann taking her third son Philip to the police station after he had threatened his older brother Ian with a knife. Ian, aged 15, subsequently asked to be taken into care and when he was returned home he tried to kill himself by overdosing on painkillers. The notes record that Ann and Philip had also previously taken overdoses.
 
Read their backgrounds. They were not average scruffs. I'll concede that int his article it does make a significant distinction betweent the two families.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/01/bulger.familyandrelationships

Par for the course. No, you're right backgrounds like that don't help anyone but a lot of us come from backgrounds like that - That's what I meant when I said they were essentially normal kids - There were and still are families like that on any and every estate - It was a one in a million fucked up combination of circumstances that led to them doing the murder, it was nothing special about them though.

E2a - And didn't some copper who interviewed them say in the course of the investigation, he'd interviewed kids from far more damaged backgrounds? He did. And that's what I meant by normal, that sort of background is far more commonplace than most people would like to think. And that's what makes it normal coz it just is. For a hell of a lot of people.
 
Interesting how there's little mention of either of the fathers though.

I'm looking for a more comprehensive article I once read, where it gave full attention to all the parents. It was a while back though. The article does criticise the press's lack of focus on the dads.

e2a found this http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/bulger/7.html

Frances Lengel I accept what you say to a large extent, but even if we put Thompson on the scale of the type of families you're talking about, I think he's at the extreme end. Look at the link there.

e2a again re venables on next page.

Teachers started noticing Jon's attention-seeking behavior when it began in 1991. He would do strange things, like rock back and forth in his chair, holding onto his desk, moaning and making odd noises. His teacher moved him to the front of the class where she could keep an eye on him, but then he took to knocking things over on her desk. At first, Jon's violence was self-inflicted. He banged his head on the furniture, against the wall, and would throw himself on the floor. Jon cut himself with scissors and tore at his own clothing. But sometimes his self-destruction pivoted outward. He roamed around the classroom, tearing down the displays and artwork of other students. Jon stood on his desk and threw things at other children. Teachers documented his disruptive antics — they had never seen anything like it before.
 
Last edited:
Interesting how there's little mention of either of the fathers though.

Nowhere near as interesting as this bit
but by the environment in which these boys lived, a world of social and economic deprivation, of trashy television and cultural poverty, inadequate social services, failed schooling and general confusion.

My bold coz I hate them. Give people directly the means and the money and you'll see far less of this stuff. It's not hard.
 
what do you mean by 'the means'? and do you think that handing out a load of money to people will prevent anti-social behaviour?

Not by itself no, but, giving people the means to live and not be infantilised (and that includes giving them enough money to live on) will cut down on the bulger sort of crime. ASB, probably not coz that 's a different gig.
 
The bulger case was just kids who went too far though. Not really comparable with Savile IMO. You have got a point about everyone having done things they're ashamed of though - I remember trying to derail a train when I was little. And beating up a kid and pissing on him - If my mate had've said "Shall we set him on fire?" Instead of "Shall we piss on him?" I'd have probably gone along with it. To me that's what sums up the Bulger case - Two essentially normal lads taking a road that most of us have done but for them it ending up with them doing a deeply fucked up thing. Which to me is a million miles from Savile.
Sorry I don't mean the Bulger killers r like J'S at all, I meant the way media portrayed both stories. Cos I see a pattern here which is not helpful in actually tackling abuse
 
I've been reading a fair bit about abuse in foster homes and it is something that needs mentioning. We had a case of this a few years ago... .where a young teenager was abusing a foster child in his family. It was a dreadful situation as the child had been "rescued" from familial abuse only to be brought into another abusive situation. The child was completely let down by the system ... what upset a lot of us who worked on this was that the teenager was afforded more counselling from child services than the child. I can readily understand the need for him to be counselled as it was viewed as "high priority" in order to try to prevent him from abusing again...yet the child was left with a six month wait for counselling and had to deal with the trauma of being abused in what was meant to be a safe place.

I don't know about counselling (as opposed to child psychotherapy) or the Irish system but I can't imagine it's that different and it takes a while to set up child psychotherapy for children. It's not as simple as this child needs it therefore they get it, the child would be expected to be in a safe family who can support the therapy for a start.
 
Venables and Thompson weren't normal kids. They had family lives where they'd witnessed and been subjected to violence over a long period of time, some of it extreme. Not violence in terms of the smackings that most kids in the 80s were subjected to. Their homelives were chaotic and were a fundamental reason for their offending. The case of the two brothers in Doncaster which was a hair's breadth from becoming a similar murder bore the same hallmarks. They were from extreme environments. This is not a guarantee of extreme behaviour but makes it much more likely. Take 100 kids and put them in Thompson and Venable's situations and let's say 20 of them go onto do something very violent. Take the same hundred kids and put them in a loving home and you change that number to ,say, 2.
I agree, I don't think the killers were just normal kids who went too far. Neither do I think they were Devils. Background had a lot to do with it, I don't mean poverty at all, tho I know the stresses poverty puts on families can a reason for outbursts of violence, misery, depression etc. But then as I seem to be arguing abuse is the norm, maybe they were just an extreme end of a normal scale, horrible tho this is to think. What has made me think this is the huge no of ppl I know who have been abused. It seems like almost everyone has had abuse of some sort in their lives & i know as many males as females about whom this is true.
 
I agree, I don't think the killers were just normal kids who went too far. Neither do I think they were Devils. Background had a lot to do with it, I don't mean poverty at all, tho I know the stresses poverty puts on families can a reason for outbursts of violence, misery, depression etc. But then as I seem to be arguing abuse is the norm, maybe they were just an extreme end of a normal scale, horrible tho this is to think. What has made me think this is the huge no of ppl I know who have been abused. It seems like almost everyone has had abuse of some sort in their lives & i know as many males as females about whom this is true.

Poverty may have been an indirect factor in the 3 cases I've mentioned in various posts. In fact, it's very likely it was. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that. There's a massive problem with saying that state benefits cause these kind of problems of course, and it's that cruel narrative that we shouldn't buy into.
 
Poverty may have been an indirect factor in the 3 cases I've mentioned in various posts. In fact, it's very likely it was. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that. There's a massive problem with saying that state benefits cause these kind of problems of course, and it's that cruel narrative that we shouldn't buy into.
Yep I agree. I think most ppl would recognise that ppl are not to blame for their own poverty but it is an integral part of capitalism etc etc. Don't want to derail by going on about the 1% removing money from the 99% & transferring wealth to themselves, but I guess u all know what I mean
 
You're quoting has got a

Don't you think it's odd to claim that I'm bullying you and then say 'oh but you didn't PM me about the Freedom programme'?

No. I don't think it's odd. You made numbers of posts telling me how and what to post about the programme I mentioned even after I'd offered to send it to anyone interested, via pm. You then continued to quiz me on it and validated your questions by saying that you and others were very interested in it and that I wasn't posting it in the thread because a) it didnt exist b) I was lying c) I didn't have it.... both you and existentialist kept that up for a few pages.

You may differ in your views on your own behaviour.....but from my perspective at the receiving end it of it, it felt very much like being hassled repeatedly and needlessly to post information on a thread. This persistence and haranguing was in my view a form of bullying.
 
And both the disbelief and the ignorance fed into making the victims feel unsupported, disbelieved and "dirty".
Of course, it's not even like child abuse doesn't have history in the UK. W.T. Stead made his reputation (some would say badly) on exposing how easy it was in Victorian Britain to buy a young girl into slavery.
It's always seemed to me that apart from anything else, it's historically been cconvenient to view sexual abuse of children through the lens of "it can't be happening here". It allows the authorities and the establishment to treat it (however pernicious it actually is) as an isolated perversion of a tiny minority.
Not merely the facts.
One issue that we need to take a bit more seriously, IMO, is the cultural milieu in which the judge (i.e. the person reading the reports, not a member of the judiciary!) was raised in. This can have a noticable effect on how they judge the whole idea of child sex abuse. I think that Dawkins' "mild paedophilia" comment illustrates such an effect well.

A maiden tribute to modern babylon - the five pound virgin bought in london and sold overseas. because presumably there were no virgin teenage girls anywhere outside of England.

Stead's behavior through the whole 'investigation' was questionable. Far from making His career, he had done that with the reports of the military atrocity some years earlier. he was on the way down and seeking to try and regain his glory and sales figures. his actions on the night he supposedly purchased the girl do show quite how much he was pushing beyond his normal behavior. the result was a public reaction that I'm not sure wasn't out of proportion to the problem and more about the continuation of the moralising agenda of those who had campaigned against the contagious diseases acts, than it was about actually protecting anyone.
 
No. I don't think it's odd. You made numbers of posts telling me how and what to post about the programme I mentioned even after I'd offered to send it to anyone interested, via pm. You then continued to quiz me on it and validated your questions by saying that you and others were very interested in it and that I wasn't posting it in the thread because a) it didnt exist b) I was lying c) I didn't have it.... both you and existentialist kept that up for a few pages.

You may differ in your views on your own behaviour.....but from my perspective at the receiving end it of it, it felt very much like being hassled repeatedly and needlessly to post information on a thread. This persistence and haranguing was in my view a form of bullying.

because it doesn't matter what you send, your claims of working for a project aren't proof.


and they clearly didn't manage to teach you very much.
 
A maiden tribute to modern babylon - the five pound virgin bought in london and sold overseas. because presumably there were no virgin teenage girls anywhere outside of England.

Stead's behavior through the whole 'investigation' was questionable. Far from making His career, he had done that with the reports of the military atrocity some years earlier. he was on the way down and seeking to try and regain his glory and sales figures. his actions on the night he supposedly purchased the girl do show quite how much he was pushing beyond his normal behavior. the result was a public reaction that I'm not sure wasn't out of proportion to the problem and more about the continuation of the moralising agenda of those who had campaigned against the contagious diseases acts, than it was about actually protecting anyone.
the maiden tribute of modern babylon
 
Stead combines the most irritating aspects of tabloid journalism (of which he is considered the founding father) with fire and brimstone evangelism.

I'd rather not remember it in too much detail.

Idk this case but it strikes me as similar to the sun who had a big story about a girl being sold on Oxford St by, think it was by Romanian man, while at the same time having a policy of directing pure hated towards any immigrants including children
 
Idk this case but it strikes me as similar to the sun who had a big story about a girl being sold on Oxford St by, think it was by Romanian man, while at the same time having a policy of directing pure hated towards any immigrants including children

not sure how much he did in promoting jingoism beyond tapping into it when it suited him.

it's ok, he's dead now


which at the very least means that the quantity of hsi drivel is now limited.
 
I don't know about counselling (as opposed to child psychotherapy) or the Irish system but I can't imagine it's that different and it takes a while to set up child psychotherapy for children. It's not as simple as this child needs it therefore they get it, the child would be expected to be in a safe family who can support the therapy for a start.

Yes...but a child who was removed from their own family because of abuse is already "in the care system" and when that child is then abused again by someone in their new foster family and is left to wait 6months for counselling that is inexcusable.
 
Yes...but a child who was removed from their own family because of abuse is already "in the care system" and when that child is then abused again by someone in their new foster family and is left to wait 6months for counselling that is inexcusable.

Were you in communication with your equivalent of CAMHS about this? Did they explain to you why there was a wait of six months?
 
because it doesn't matter what you send, your claims of working for a project aren't proof.


and they clearly didn't manage to teach you very much.

Umm...where did I say that? I said I worked with the psychologists who implemented the "Freedom" relationship and sexuality programme where I work....as part of a multidisciplinary team...but I don't work for any particular project.
 
Were you in communication with your equivalent of CAMHS about this? Did they explain to you why there was a wait of six months?

Social workers were on that and the explanation was unsatisfactory to them too. Basically there were too many cases and not enough personnel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom