Childrens Commissioner. A valid point , or just look at me

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by chocolate_frog, Mar 17, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Dr Maggie Atkinson, the Children's Commissioner is in the papers again. This time she has issued a public/private apology to Denise Fergus (the mother of murdered James Bulger) for describing his horrific death after torture as 'particularly unpleasant'.

    However, what exactly is the point she is trying to make? Two or three weeks in to the job, and she seems to be just spouting arrant nonsense.

    She claims that the two sadistic, feral pieces of sh1t who tortured and left James for dead were too young for trial in an adult court room. And as children should have been given theraputic hugging sessions or some such b0110cks instead of prison.

    I don't understand her arguement. Other than the trial bit, the two scummers got exactly what she is asking for. ie luxery accomodation, with all manner of services laid on. they ahve received 'education' regarding their 'particularly unpleasant' hideous act. They have even received taxpayers money to hide their true identities so that they never have to be scared or face up to their past acts.

    So other than the adult trial, what exactly is her beef?

    Genuine question. As reading the Times, Guardian, and a number of other papers, I can't make head nor tail of her hot air expuslion...

    Re the Adult trials of the two evil yobs, I have no problem with it. If they were scared, good. I thing that little James would have been too, the difference being, James was alone. The two scum that killed him had their parents, reletives and a number of legal types holding their hand during their 'trauma'.

    Confused of Perplexia.

    PS, her answer to a question in the Times Quickfire quiz is strange when compared to her stance on children and criminal procedings.

    Tough love or tender loving care? Tough love.
  2. oldbaldy

    oldbaldy LE Moderator Good Egg (charities)
    1. Battlefield Tours

    I think she may have had an interview without coffee & now is trying to spin out of it. As usual in these situations though, the spinning does more harm!!
  3. I think the point she was making was blindingly obvious whether you agree with it or not; she thinks that the age of criminal responsibility is too low and should be raised to twelve because ten year olds are not mature enough to be trated as adults and cannot be held responsible for their actions in exactly the same way as adults.
  4. This biatch should be giver her P45 forthwith.

    Obviously one of the growing army of public sector wasters sucking taxpayers money instead of doing something productive.
  5. Sadly, she has made a point wheter we agree with it or not, and there are a few people in powerful positions who agree with the her.

    Justice in this not so Great Britain favours criminals..the authorities are thinking of binning his trial because it could reveal Venables identity. Infact, they even said that it would be a great strain to have Venables in prison due to the security nightmares this would involve and regret that he has been put back into custody.
    I'm sure this makes James' mother feel much better.

    The two 'little' monstors who killed James are now bigger monstors who since 2001 had been free to live their lives freely in Britian with anonomous identities...
  6. If a puppy p*sses the carpet and is not shown the error of its ways it will be p^ssing the carpet forever.

    It is no good waiting till it is a snarling, fully grown dog before you house break it... you have to intervene at puppy level or you're wasting your time.

    Rub their noses in it every time they p*ss, they soon get the message.

    As it is with puppies, so it is with children.

    Its just a pity we cant put the dangerous ones down like you can with dogs.
  7. Maybe some 10 year olds would struggle with the concept of right and wrong, so would some 12 year olds.
    We have Gillick competency applied to children in reference to understanding medical treatment etc, why can the same kind of system not be applied to child offenders? A board of child psychologists, play specialists and specially trained coppers could decide on a case by case basis wether or not a child was capable of comprehension of right and wrong.
    My 10 year old understands the concept, his little mate who is autistic might not have the same level of understanding despite only being 8 weeks younger.
  8. I agree with your post,especially the last point.This would act as a real dererrent to feral scum.
  9. We have for centuries held 10 year olds responsible for their actions. The law hasn't changed. so is she saying that 10 year olds today are less capable? Swingeing indictment of how enfeebled are the children unlucky enought to have been born in the last decade or so.

    (I am of course referring to developmentally normal children; those with special needs would - like special needs adults - be assessed individually for competence. Thompson and Venables were not found incompetent for trial).
  10. If I remember correctly she's of the view that its too scary, grown up, and confrontational for children of their age to be tried in a 'proper' court, complete with judge and barrister in robes and wigs etc, having to stand in the dock, yadda yadda... because at their age they would be too adversely affected and unable to adequately defend themselves - an argument which I'd say is balls because a) they seemed quite able to take the adult action of a very nasty murder, and b) isn't their defence counsel supposed to ensure that they get an adequate defence.

    I was interested to hear a few morning's back that their defence counsel from the time was on the radio and showing barely concealed contempt for them, and was arguing for the correctness of their trial as it was done.

    In any case one could look further than the Children's Commissioner herself, as there was a slight stink at the time of her appointment despite the relevant Select Committee recommending against her ... which was balls - Ed Balls to be precise.
  11. Quite like that idea. It could be pretty much given to all up to the age of, say, 18. After that only to recognised sufferers of various mental conditions and disorders.

    As for the court, they weren't to scared to abduct a toddler, beat and punch him, stuff batteries in to him, beat him with a iron bar or rub paint in his eyes or leave him dying on the train tracks.

    So I couldn't give a fcuk if they were scared or not at any point during procedings. They had a defence council, their parents and, no doubt, numourous othets sympathisers to support them.

    Apparently one went nuts when they told him his picture and name had been released (it makes me smile to think of how low he must have been at that point). 9mm in the back of the skull is all they neede, that is pretty similar to what a dangerous dog would have got for a similar event.
  12. If you put the age of criminal responsibility above the typical age of puberty (which is falling), I foresee some very nasty incidents; both an increase in sex "offences", and also a nastier turn in urban gang warfare.
  13. These two pieces of garbage are not human in my book. How can they be?...they must have been extremely deranged and dangerous to commit such an act at this age.I think history has proven that some people cannot be cured eg paedophiles, perverts.
    As for the parents, who were obviously terrible people, why were they allowed to keep their other children? Even Thompsons mother had another child afther the conviction of Robert.

    If they had not been caught, I dread to think what else they would have done. Would they have killed again?..I think so. There was evidence of sexual abuse during the murder, but this was watered down to save further suffering of James' family.
    And what is Jon Venables alleged to have done?...yes, something in connection to sexual images. Just proves that some people cannot be rehabilitated, no matter how long they serve.
  14. That is quite strange, the ss normally would move in quick, sharp to snatch the children, even from the delivery room. They have done it before for much less than this, whilst at the same time abandoning children in worse positions to their fate.

    There is now, apparently, a healthy ex-pat contingent in Spain hiding from the ss baby snatchers and their obscure childrens courts.

    Probably some hippy hand-wringer felt so bad for banging up the two sh1tbags that they decided to leave the family together for 'emotional reasons' or some such twaddle.
  15. She is a classic example of the Neues Arbiets Placeperson…

    Chosen for her credentials rather than experience…

    Seriously, a 'Childrens Commissioner' who's never had children? How very right on.