She thinks it is inevitable that sex offenders will re-offend, and statistics show that she is not that far wrong, apparently.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1186701...ke-Gary-Glitter.html

If castration is so safe that we whip the testicles from any teenage boy expressing a fleeting wish to be a girl, or on the whim of their loopy parents, why are we not castrating sex offenders?

I wouldn't trust most mothers or fathers come to that. People believe what they want to believe. I'm delighted not to have had my testicles removed, not that they are of any use to me at my age anyway.

It is just so odd that the reaction to prisoners being castrated is (probably correctly) that it is barbaric, but for a child it is stunning and brave.

Honey wrote:
It is just so odd that the reaction to prisoners being castrated is (probably correctly) that it is barbaric, but for a child it is stunning and brave.

That's the left-tards for you.

I don't think castration will cure them has it's in their nature, they can't put down like dogs.

Green Man wrote:
Honey wrote:
It is just so odd that the reaction to prisoners being castrated is (probably correctly) that it is barbaric, but for a child it is stunning and brave.

That's the left-tards for you.

I don't think castration will cure them has it's in their nature, they can't put down like dogs.

I think a lot of it is about power and manipulation, so that would continue with or without testicles.

Yes Honey and why should child abusers be considered different from other sex abusers? Those who rape. Those who attack old people. Should we castrate every male? Humanity has become very stupid.

JK2006 wrote:
Yes Honey and why should child abusers be considered different from other sex abusers? Those who rape. Those who attack old people. Should we castrate every male? Humanity has become very stupid.

Can you glue the testicles back on when we realise that people are lying to get the ultimate revenge?

If you are using Proxy Back; please don't (it's blocked by our Spam filter).

Honey wrote:
She thinks it is inevitable that sex offenders will re-offend, and statistics show that she is not that far wrong, apparently.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1186701...ke-Gary-Glitter.html

If castration is so safe that we whip the testicles from any teenage boy expressing a fleeting wish to be a girl, or on the whim of their loopy parents, why are we not castrating sex offenders?

I feel sorry for her like most sane people do. However, she shouldn't bring her son on the Glitter bandwagon. (Was Glitter set up in the hostel?)

She should focus hard on Venabals parole hearing. It looks like that Thompson has kept his nose and head down since murder of James Bulger. It's hard to believe that 30 years have flown by.

but this wasn't a sex crime was it? ghastly murder.

Yes by little children. Even back then humanity was incapable of looking at individual cases. Mary Bell springs to mind.

hedda wrote:
but this wasn't a sex crime was it? ghastly murder.

Venables was convicted of sex crimes after he was released.

Green Man wrote:
Honey wrote:
She thinks it is inevitable that sex offenders will re-offend, and statistics show that she is not that far wrong, apparently.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1186701...ke-Gary-Glitter.html

If castration is so safe that we whip the testicles from any teenage boy expressing a fleeting wish to be a girl, or on the whim of their loopy parents, why are we not castrating sex offenders?

I feel sorry for her like most sane people do. However, she shouldn't bring her son on the Glitter bandwagon. (Was Glitter set up in the hostel?)

She should focus hard on Venabals parole hearing. It looks like that Thompson has kept his nose and head down since murder of James Bulger. It's hard to believe that 30 years have flown by.

The children were each raised in quite different conditions after conviction, which might account for the huge difference in their lives since.

Denise Fergus is quite a hero in my eyes. She has helped an awful lot of people without taking advantage, like so many who trot around with huge salaries and nothing worthwhile to say.

hedda wrote:
but this wasn't a sex crime was it? ghastly murder.
I remember it being reported at the time that the killers had sexually assaulted/tortured James Bulger. The Wikipedia page refers to that.

Jo wrote:
hedda wrote:
but this wasn't a sex crime was it? ghastly murder.
I remember it being reported at the time that the killers had sexually assaulted/tortured James Bulger. The Wikipedia page refers to that.

The police said the lads never molested James. But the poor bugger was tortured.


I have no idea why people take Wikipedia as gospel? Anyone can edit it.

Honey wrote:
hedda wrote:
but this wasn't a sex crime was it? ghastly murder.

Venables was convicted of sex crimes after he was released.

I think it was twice.

Green Man wrote:
The police said the lads never molested James. But the poor bugger was tortured.

I have no idea why people take Wikipedia as gospel? Anyone can edit it.
It's possible to be discerning when using Wikipedia and judge how reliable a page is likely to be, e.g. how well sourced it is. The Wikipedia page for this case says the police suspected that James Bulger had been sexually assaulted as all his lower clothing had been removed and refers to what the pathologist's report said had been done to a particular part of his anatomy. This was also reported at the time by The Independent. James Bulger suffered multiple fractures - Pathologist reveals James Bulger had 42 injuries including fractured skull

There's also James Bulger's mother.

James Bulger's mum reveals she's only just learned truth about son's sexual abuse

The police and mother say James wasn't molested.