in the wholly ghastly Bulger matter ?

tabloids keep driving that poor mother insane by encouraging her in an endless and debilitating saga that somehow her son's killer could be re-tried and punished all over again.

There's a Tory MP and possibly 1000 DM readers will post messages.

But out of 60 plus million UK citizens, where is the fury ?

and will Mark Williams-Thomas and DM hackette Amanda Platell join in this 'fury' crusade. Should we be worried about them as they both sought out child porn ? (MWT twice now)

Unfortunately both poor little Bulger's Mother and Father have turned this appalling saga into a career opportunity

Hold on a minute....I can't let 'a career opportunity' go by without comment

Their very young son was horribly murdered by 2 only slightly older children......no time, no amount of talk therapy and no amount of anyone elses opinions is going to alter the complete carnage that their minds, and thoughts, have gone through and will still be going through.

Unless you can say that you have been through the same, there is no justification in my mind to tell them to stop campaigning. If you have had enough of hearing about it, switch your telly off and don't buy a newspaper.......but don't accuse them (by the back door of stating they have a career out of it) of making money from it.......we all have to get by to live, and their world has been turned upside down compared to most.........

I think the term 'career' may be harsh but descriptive in this case.

It's impossible to know how you would act in similar circumstances. The one couple I knew whose daughter was murdered in a sensational crime- not solved- never once spoke to the media up until the days they died...and considered them goulish parasites, but that's just them.

the media do keep sensationalising the Bulger case and it seems these parents are consumed by it. The world is full of people who have had relatives murdered- half of Iraq?....what is being achieved by these media campaigns?

I believe armed conflict and terrorist acts are in a globall theatre.........murder in your own town by your own townspeople in a completely non-understandable act of violence is not the right comparison to make

Mr Reason wrote:
I believe armed conflict and terrorist acts are in a globall theatre.........murder in your own town by your own townspeople in a completely non-understandable act of violence is not the right comparison to make

tell that to the Iraqis. Most die in their own towns and are killed by their own people.(albeit in a nightmare created by us)
You make it sound like their deaths do not rate the scrutiny one in the UK from a decade ago does.

In lots of ways, I do say that the deaths of the Iraqis (and Libyans, and Syrians and Afghans and Chechyans ad infinitum) require less scrutiny when debating domestic issues....they are international situations with complex arguments for and against the rights of intervention etc....with differening and complex constitutions. You disagree, because your preception and level of acceptance is that we are all equal and that the above mentioned conflicts (Iraq mainly) should be given equal weight. Thats your stance, based on the level of acceptance.

In all debates, there is a flip side. My perspective and level of acceptance is difference. The international situation I don't understand in terms of law, constitution and rights / wrongs. The UK situation, I vote, I know the law, I know the constitution of society. That is my primary field of vision and concern. And if the Bulger parents are not allowed within our society to conduct themselves as they see fit, whether some like it or not, its their right to do so as much as anyone elses to disagree. In a society with lower levels of high violence than elsewhere, the crime is all the more shocking (in mine and many others view)

For me in a democratic system, I can seperate the two as described, because the democratic differences between the UK and the above mentioned states are not equal. Womens rights for instance are not equal, the rule of law isn't equal and capital punishment is still practiced.

My view is the parents should be allowed to campaign, and all I objected to was the 'coarse phrasing' of them making a career out of campaigning......politicians campaign on issues all the time, so do campaign groups (i sometimes get sick of hearing Amnesty International!) as do any other lobby groups, and they all have campaigning careers..........

as I say- I cannot, nor can anyone really, put themselves in the shoes of someone with a murdered child, relative etc.

Which is what my point is about say Iraqis who have died..how shocking must they feel when they are told continually we aided in those deaths to 'free' them ( personally i think I might become quite homicidal).

These parents have a right to protest, scream as much they want.

But the media does them no service and actively promotes this horror and notion that some day, somehow if they continue screeching that something will be done when bugger all will happen and life will go and as before for them and the killers alike.

It's the media (of which I was once part of) that has become vicious, nasty, brutal, deceitful, and inflammatory and staffed by moranic fools yet- as we have witnessed with the hacking scandal- a bunch of sniveling moaning cowards when called to account for their own illegality...(as in The Sun atrocious workers/Murdoch secret tape- wailing to high heaven and apparently ignorant that bribing public officials may be illegal and like their boss weeping because they were caught and others were not).

# hedda lecture on ethics ends here.

Ah Hedda we are both STILL in the media; the media has changed.
I wrote for The Sun and The Mail and The Guardian and The Times - now I write for The Internet and Inside Time and other places.

If James Bulger's family are able to speak about it then it is their right to do so.
My objection is when Mrs Fergus is paraded as an "expert" on the matter of justice. She is not, although her views will be helpful.

Wasn't it always the way? Media 'creating' a story rather than reporting it? An example is the old vicorian illistrated papers that reported gory sensationalist murders. There was no media control or internet and social media, just printed word and drawings from someone who owned a printing business. So they could do and report and print virtually what they liked, true or fiction (probably like most things 'based on fact')

So modern sensibilities are framed by time moving on, society trying to become more sharing and caring and trying to push back the traditions of many years of newspaper ownership and how their behaviour is managed.

Let me, though, also demonstrate that you don't have to own a newspaper left or right nowadays, to be able to report what you see fit if you have an outlet and something to print? That info wars chap, the bloke who recently hijacked Andrew Neil on his Sunday show, is obviously a nutter with an eye to making commercial gain from his website, but he is believed by many who don't question.

Likewise, you can argue for Stormfront having a media voice via the internet, days of old it would be an underground newspaper.......I guess the only difference between these methods of publishing is 'readership'. I know this messageboard owner (as I like to call him, as I'm not over familiar) is using the media to speak to anyone who wants to listen, fair play, but readership numbers are going to be nothing like the mainstream press he once wrote for......and power is held by those who can reach the masses......any why wouldn't you try to use that influence ?

Just saying like

Has anyone read what these two little bastards did to an innocent, defenceless 2 year old?

As a father of a very vulnerable little boy, I'd kill anyone who touched my son, and would willingly do time for it.

Sorry if that's not PC and Liberal, but it's the truth.