A shocking story!

[Roses]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45127284

Another shocking tale of sexual abuse concerning two Catholic Schools Ampleforth and Downside. The schools were keen to protect their reputations, rather than protect the children attending those places!

[wigginhall]

The report says that the headmaster of Downside burned wheelbarrow loads of papers.  And even after being warned,  both schools were secretive.  "The overriding concern was to avoid contact with the police".  This went on for 40 years!

[jeremyp]

And what if the judge is wrong?

Bad news. But I think you are more likely to be wrong than the judge.

[Roses]

Bad news. But I think you are more likely to be wrong than the judge.

You reckon?

[Roses]

Whilst no denomination is immune from child sexual abuse, it does appear that the RCC in predominant in this area. Whilst there is never any excuse for this perverted behaviour, I do wonder if the celibacy rule, which is very unnatural, encourages some monks and priests to behave in this way?

[jeremyp]

You reckon?

Absolutely. The judge has all the facts available to him. You do not.

[jeremyp]

Whilst no denomination is immune from child sexual abuse, it does appear that the RCC in predominant in this area. Whilst there is never any excuse for this perverted behaviour, I do wonder if the celibacy rule, which is very unnatural, encourages some monks and priests to behave in this way?

You may be right but that is pure speculation. I want to believe you but the skeptical part of my brain is asking where the evidence is. It could just be that the RCC gets all the publicity because of the way they covered up child sex abuse.

[Rhiannon]

Absolutely. The judge has all the facts available to him. You do not.

To be fair, what the judge has in front of him are psychological/psychiatric reports. Psychology and psychiatry are inexact sciences at best so what he has is expert opinion, not facts. And we don't know what form these assessments take, how long they last for or how many are made; for example, it can take many sessions - and a pattern of offending - for narcissist personality disorder to become apparent. Not commenting on this case in particular, but hypothetically it is possible that the wife is the dominant party and her skill as a narcissist has convinced everyone that she has been manipulated into abusing.

[jeremyp]

To be fair, what the judge has in front of him are psychological/psychiatric reports. Psychology and psychiatry are inexact sciences at best so what he has is expert opinion, not facts. And we don't know what form these assessments take, how long they last for or how many are made; for example, it can take many sessions - and a pattern of offending - for narcissist personality disorder to become apparent. Not commenting on this case in particular, but hypothetically it is possible that the wife is the dominant party and her skill as a narcissist has convinced everyone that she has been manipulated into abusing.

This is all true, but I think it is more likely that the judge has the relevant knowledge to make a decision than Little Roses who doesn't even have access to the psychiatric reports.

[Robbie]

So called experts don't always get it right. I remember reading about a child sex offender who was supposedly 'rehabilitated', only to offend again.    And of course Jon Venables was released after intensive 'rehabilitation', but is now locked up again, because of all the child porn he had stashed on his computer!   

That boy was not rehabilitated. Where did he learn about porn except from inside - and a member of staff had a sexual relationship with him. This country doesn't do rehabilitation very well but you don't have to be an expert to know that for a ten year old who commits murder every effort should be made to rehabilitate them.

This thread is about some pretty horrific & heartbreaking stuff. I can't add to what has already been said.

[Harrowby Hall]

That boy was not rehabilitated. Where did he learn about porn except from inside - and a member of staff had a sexual relationship with him. This country doesn't do rehabilitation very well but you don't have to be an expert to know that for a ten year old who commits murder every effort should be made to rehabilitate them.

This thread is about some pretty horrific & heartbreaking stuff. I can't add to what has already been said.

Absolutely right.

The sad truths about the Jamie Bulger affair.

1  The two boys were demonised during their trial. The response for two ten-year olds should have been rehabilitation under a cloak of total confidentiality. Instead they were criminalised as adults.

2  Jamie's mother became the property of the gutter press - who took every opportunity to wind her up like a clockwork toy whenever they felt her grief could boost circulation. She, too, should have been protected and rehabilitated.

3  Even though both boys were were given new identities there remains the desire (by officialdom) that their subsequent lives should be accessible to the public domain.

[Rhiannon]

  Jamie's mother became the property of the gutter press - who took every opportunity to wind her up like a clockwork toy whenever they felt her grief could boost circulation. She, too, should have been protected and rehabilitated.

I agree with this but 'rehabilitated' isn't the right word for a victim, she's done nothing wrong. Whatever she would have needed - therapy, certainly, and lots of it - she may well have had, or at least had access to - maybe she declined it. And as a mother myself I'm not sure whether a lifetime of therapy would ever be enough to find a way to live with what happened to her little boy.

[Robbie]

I've often thought the same Rhi.

There's no doubt the whole thing was handled terribly, all the publicity, pictures of the boys in the newspapers, their names known. At the time other countries in Europe were up in arms that the names of two children that young were publicised. Then when they were incarcerated there were descriptions of the places giving the impression they were 'holiday camps'. Nothing to be proud of.

Sufficient surely for the GBP to know a poor little child was brutally murdered, two children under the age of 15 charged, tried and sentenced in private without all the details and pictures. Then not mentioned again. James Bulger's parents may have been able to receive help to accommodate their grief in a kinder, more gentle atmosphere.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45127284

Another shocking tale of sexual abuse concerning two Catholic Schools Ampleforth and Downside. The schools were keen to protect their reputations, rather than protect the children attending those places!

You may have seen the documentary. I watched it when I was on my own. The subject was not sensationalised,it was upsetting but to hear what was said was informative.

https://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week8/boarding-schools-secret-shame-exposure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWOM3iqF7c

[Roses]

I think it right to out the Bulger killers, their crime was so heinous.

[Nearly Sane]

I think it right to out the Bulger killers, their crime was so heinous.

But what purpose does it serve?

[Roses]

But what purpose does it serve?

I reckon their sentence probably gave satisfaction to the relatives of their victim.

[Robbie]

Doesn't bring little James back. There could have been justice without publicity.

But what purpose does it serve?

Fuels outrage in the minds of pond life. I wonder if they feel better for it.

[Nearly Sane]

I reckon their sentence probably gave satisfaction to the relatives of their victim.

What has that to doing with them being named?

[jeremyp]

I agree with this but 'rehabilitated' isn't the right word for a victim, she's done nothing wrong.

There's slightly different meanings to the word. The murderers needed to be rehabilitated so that they were both no longer a danger to society and could both function in the said society in a constructive way.

Jamie Bulger's mother need to be rehabilitated in the sense of recovering from a grievous injury.

[jeremyp]

I think it right to out the Bulger killers, their crime was so heinous.

They were 10 years old. Why was their crime more heinous than an adult who has a better understanding of what they are doing committing murder?

[jeremyp]

I reckon their sentence probably gave satisfaction to the relatives of their victim.

I bet it didn't.

I think there are three reasons for incarcerating criminals:

1. protecting society from them
2. deterrence
3. rehabilitation

Are you proposing to add vengeance to that list? In my opinion that would be wrong.

[Rhiannon]

I reckon their sentence probably gave satisfaction to the relatives of their victim.

Really?

[Rhiannon]

I bet it didn't.

I think there are three reasons for incarcerating criminals:

1. protecting society from them
2. deterrence
3. rehabilitation

Are you proposing to add vengeance to that list? In my opinion that would be wrong.

Agreed.

[Rhiannon]

They were 10 years old. Why was their crime more heinous than an adult who has a better understanding of what they are doing committing murder?

And what abuse had one or both been subject to in order to commit their crimes in the first place? I agree, they were children ffs.

[Rhiannon]

There's slightly different meanings to the word. The murderers needed to be rehabilitated so that they were both no longer a danger to society and could both function in the said society in a constructive way.

Jamie Bulger's mother need to be rehabilitated in the sense of recovering from a grievous injury.

Grieving people don’t need rehab. They need recovery. Different thing.

We don’t know what kinds of recovery programmes she was offered.