you could possibly have and the happiest New Year would be to write to someone in prison, wishing them well; preferably someone doing time for truly awful crimes like Jo Cox's killer or Ian Huntley, and cheering them up. They miss family and friends so much at this time of year. My main goal in prison was to cheer people up (quite often, staff). I found it incredibly rewarding and the gratitude I got back was fantastic. You could never see my cell walls for Christmas and birthday cards, often hand made (and very funny - not always complimentary) - I made time for anyone who needed it which sadly was more than many had ever had offered to them (including parents, wives, children). The Chaplains loved me as I filled a slot they often could not, with non believers. I do understand those who find it impossible to spread tolerance and kindness to those who may not appear to deserve it but you will benefit far more than they will if you force yourself. Friends and family find it hard to believe me when I tell them I loved my time inside but I did; I found it far more rewarding cheering up a suicidal person than selling a million Una Paloma Blancas.

Wish Ian Huntley well - and cheer him up?

A guy who murdered two 10 year old girls - about 15 years ago - and still refuses to say why, or even how!

Most of us would choose more worthy recipients for our attention.


Perhaps, it might be more appropriate to ask Huntley to detail what actually occurred - to give the victims' families a degree of closure?

Completely correct Spee - you should only behave as your nature decrees. If you feel you only have enough compassion for one set of people and not for another, don't fake it. Be true to yourself and allow your compassion to be limited by the quantity inside you.

Concern for the sufferings and misfortunes of others - is a definition of compassion.

Huntley had none for his young/innocent victims, or their parents and families.

And refuses to say what happened, even though he will never be released.


Yes, compassion can be felt for most - but not those who perpetuate, daily, the sufferings of others.

Our role, if any, should be get him to cease - and do the decent and human thing...

Correct Spee and compassion for the suffering of others must be limited by who we are and how much compassion we have to give so I quite understand your desire to limit those benefiting from yours.

Spee wrote:
Concern for the sufferings and misfortunes of others - is a definition of compassion.

Huntley had none for his young/innocent victims, or their parents and families.

And refuses to say what happened, even though he will never be released.


Yes, compassion can be felt for most - but not those who perpetuate, daily, the sufferings of others.

Our role, if any, should be get him to cease - and do the decent and human thing...





I think, in the case of Ian Huntley, he actually couldn't feel compassion because of his own condition.

It is possible to show compassion and friendship to everyone though, isn't it?
We can accept the person without accepting the crime?

JK2006 wrote:
Correct Spee and compassion for the suffering of others must be limited by who we are and how much compassion we have to give so I quite understand your desire to limit those benefiting from yours.

I think it is more a case of different people channeling their compassion into certain areas rather than a lack of it.
Good and decent people go about things in different ways.

Yes and that was the point of my post Honey; this is a good time of year to spread compassion to places normally receiving none. As the mighty Lord Longford used to do.

Frank Pakenham was well ahead of his time.

But it takes a great man to have compassion for child killers like Brady and Huntley.

Who tortured their young victims, lied about it, killed them, hid their bodies - and showed no remorse.

In addition, they - both (to this day) refuse to tell the families where the remains are.


To show compassion to those who (if they could) would do the same again - is a waste of a rare commodity.

Thankfully, our courts punish remorseless people...harder than the rest.

How strange - a waste? I think it the greatest gift of our species. Again we must agree to differ.

Next, compassion for that Austrian - Adolf Hitler?

Or would THAT be a waste...

Yes since he's dead, I think that would be a waste.

Not though for Karadzic?

JK - compassion is important, but must be earned.

At least, by an admission of error - for whatever reason...

We're obviously at cross purposes here Spee; I'm not talking about those who deserve compassion; I'm talking about those of us who give it.

Spee wrote:
Frank Pakenham was well ahead of his time.

But it takes a great man to have compassion for child killers like Brady and Huntley.

Who tortured their young victims, lied about it, killed them, hid their bodies - and showed no remorse.

In addition, they - both (to this day) refuse to tell the families where the remains are.


To show compassion to those who (if they could) would do the same again - is a waste of a rare commodity.

Thankfully, our courts punish remorseless people...harder than the rest.




Why is it a rare commodity? We can have as much compassion as we choose.

Spee wrote:
Not though for Karadzic?

JK - compassion is important, but must be earned.

At least, by an admission of error - for whatever reason...

I dont understand why you think it should be earned?
It doesn't sound very compassionate if you put limits on it.

My apologies

Let me wish you - and your associates - a very Happy New Year


On this different and thought provoking site...

Congratulations to JK, Honey and Spee for a most stimulating and thoughtful little debate. I found myself more in agreement with JK and Honey but I love the spirited way Spee puts his counterarguments. Good stuff!

I think it's most important to show compassion (especially if they are banged up and can't do any more harm).

It's similar to our (supposed) system of law: everyone must be treated equally from the very powerful to the weakest (and most savage).

If you believe in the alleged teachings of Jesus- the Greatest Socialist Who Ever Lived (yes I know ITK it wasn't his money in the Temple), isn't it how he behaved?

"let those who haven't sinned cast the first stones !" or in layman's terms "you catch more flies with homey than vinegar".

Mind you my first wife used to say : "oh you would say Jack The Ripper had an unfortunate childhood & is misunderstood" or that Doctor Shipman was merely being kind to the elderly but isn't it wiser to study and talk to the most dangerous and evil to understand the mentality (of course psychopaths can't be cured but can be studied).
Although she was pretty good at having troublemakers evicted from Heaven when she ran it (the nightclub under the Arches at Charing Cross not that other destination where some of us are headed..eventually)

Example: the endless media attacks on the James Bulger killers- what do they achieve? Nothing, The parents are driven mad and is it any wonder that one gets repeatedly into trouble while the other seems unscathed by scandal?

I'm forwarding JK's name to my good pal Pope Francis (another Socialist) and recommending he be considered for a Sainthood (along with my application to be nominated Mother Superior Hedda of Notting Hill Gate)