the best description I can find of this person is;-
Oxygen thief.
Fans of the Twat-O-Tron will be delighted and disturbed in equal measure to learn that one Daily Mail commenter has managed to surpass the hideous turdspurts which emanate from Middle England's automated indignation generator. It's inevitable that any story regarding the murderers of James Bulger will arouse strong feelings, …
If you think Mail comments are bad, you should flick through the letters page to the Daily Express. It's hair-raising stuff, sort of a Völkischer Beobachter for retards with the likes of Richard Madeley and Anne Widdecombe standing in for the Goebbels family - only without the easy going charm.
The Mail is a horrible newspaper but it is brilliantly put together to target its audience with the sort of precision the US Air Force can only dream of. The Express is just a sordid pile of hatred and inadequacies with Alan Titchmarsh on the front.
Some of us read (okay skim) the Daily Mail for its comedy value and as a touchstone for the angst ridden middle-class zeitgeist (tm).
It is also compulsory to read the best / most right-wing articles out to the wife in an Alan Partridge style.
Lynne - "Who's upset you this time Alan?"
Alan - "People. I just hate the general public."
I realy do wonder why there aint a report stupidity button. If we look at the post and the posters name and location it wouldn't be a stretch of imagination to conclude this is a cultural response perhaps. Kind of response that chops of shop lifter hands.
Bottom line what those two did was wrong on a level most cant deal with, yet they were children and if you substract the publicity from the equation, then there punishment is just. If I tech a child badly and set bad examples to the effect that they do something like these two would I be guilty or would they, or would we both be guilty and to what level of guilt. Given how this whole affair has panned out it is not hard to conclude that these two were not only damaged before they commited the crime but have become more damaged as a result of the crime and all the publicity.
What realy upsets the monther of the lost child, the facts or how there reported and there frequency. News just loves to live of peoples sorrows and whilst being seen to hand sugar out often rubs salt in instead.
Maybe the small fact that the crime was commited by children who are now adults may of been overlooked by the poster, we dont know but we sure are quick to judge like a rabble.
But when you have a society designed to protect the stupid from there own shortcommings yet no measures to protect the non stupid from the stupid then, what can you expect.
This post has been deleted by its author
Sure, why bring back hanging? After all the murder rate may have been in decline for 100 years before the abolition, standing at just 6.2 (it's lowest ever!) murders per million in 1960, and risen astronomically since the death penalty was abolished, in 2000 it was 18.3, (2007 it was 20.4) but I am sure that the two issues are unrelated.
Far better to pretend everyone is as nice as we are, and only really need a little encouragement to join us in our wonderful Utopia, rather than face the reality that the not so 'nice' people need a big stick to keep them in check.
Sometimes 'nice' people need protecting from their own naivety, their own intellectual shortfalls and the emotive pleas from not so nice people.
"and risen astronomically since the death penalty was abolished, in 2000"
Or was the last capital crime high treason? Possibly both. FYI it was 1998, not 2000.
What the hell dose that have to do with murder rates?
Also if you bother to go to date the 2009 murder rates were at their lowest in 20 years.
Talk about picking your statistics.
Oddly enough "The Troubles" match the rise and fall well.
I actually meant: 'and has risen astronomically since the death penalty was abolished. In 2000 it was 18.3...' Not that it was abolished in 2000.
A moratorium on the death penalty was passed in 1965 and that was effectively the abolition (technically it was 1969 for all offences but high treason as you said) and 1965 is when the murder rate rose for the first time in 100 years, and at quite a rate.
The troubles started later and finished earlier, the murder rate rose before the troubles started and continued to rise for a decade after.
What does it have to do with it? People are less inclined to carry knives, guns, and add those extra few stamps on a victims head if they thought that they could swing for it. There is a world of different between 25 years (effectively 10) and death.
As for the murder rate effectively halving within one year, a statistical anomaly (generally it is five yearly murder rates) the Government massaging the stats (wouldn't be the first time) or just a great year for the NHS. Let's be honest, medicine has improved greatly since the 60s, there should be far, far less murders. Even taking into account the '20 year low', it is still double what it was in 1960 and higher than at any time before Victoria came to the throne.
Would Venables have killed Bulger if the death penalty hadn't been abolished? Hard to say, but I do know that had Venables been hanged at 18, it would have saved at least one innocent person from abuse.
"wil, be tracked down"
Easy-peasy, took me 45 seconds using pipl. Strangely (or not) the last link was to:
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/mar/08/jon-venables-comment-michael-white)
So it seems his comment has already reached a wider audience than Daily Wail or El Reg readers.
Wait for /. :-(
I suspect that, far from having his own reality TV show, he'll have to go into hiding for a time.
The "Fascist bastards" just spotted "Pritesh Hathalia from Leicester" and hit downvote without reading the post...
One would hope that the comment was meant to be ironic and intended to show up the stupidity of the great British public - 119 downvotes would show quite clearly that at least 119 people didn't get it. I would like to think that - however I don't have that much faith in humanity.
It is a strange thing that so much of society, of which the Daily Mail provides a condensed version, believes that children who murder children are somehow worse than adults who do it.
It is is obviously bad whoever does it, but I cannot get my head round why we should condemn children who commit this crime more than adults. Surely it should be the other way around?
The idea of publishing the current details of Venables appearance and name is appalling. Let's hope Nu Labour's desperation to be liked by somebody, *anybody*, does not see them submitting to this illogical mob.