Bereaved Mum sells newspapers

The press are having a field day with the artist-formerly-known-as-Jon-Venables. Venables, who was jailed for his part in the murder of a toddler in 1993, has sinned again.

It's not at all clear what the fuck he's done this time. Assault? Kiddie porn? Arson in a Naval dockyard? Failed to return a library book? Perhaps he sounded his horn in a built-up area after 11:30.

Regardless, the press are more than happy to rake over all the hideous ashes of 17 years ago.

And, of course, the bien pensants are equally happy to re-visit all of the endless, hypothetical, tedious debates about 'the age of criminal responsibility', and the 'nature of evil. yah?'. Great topics for dinner-party debater and perfect for the Moral Maze morons to agonise over.

And at the centre of this artificially generated storm of outrage and opinion, who do we find? Every time? Denise Bulger, mother of the murdered child.

When the story first broke, a relative told the BBC that the family "did not intend to comment", but that the news had brought her "a whole load of anxiety"

Clearly, this intention was soon forgotten, and Ms. Bulger was soon demanding audience with the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw. A second spokesman informed the grateful nation that Ms Bulger was 'content' - oh, jolly good - after the meeting, having previously been "sick" of having "doors closed in her face".

And now, Ms Bulger has called for the sacking of Children's Commissioner Maggie Atkinson, who had the temerity to have a view on the age of criminal responsibility.  Ms. Atkinson feels that the murderers Venables and Atkinson should not have been tried in an adult court.

Ms Bulger, speaking to the world yet again, does not agree:

"This woman owes James and me an apology for her twisted and insensitive comments. Then she should resign or be sacked"

To which the only response can be, what the fuck has all this got to do with you, love?

Yes, Denise, your child was the victim of a horrendous crime, many years ago. The perpetrators were caught, sentenced and incarcerated.

Now one of them, having served what society judged to be his due time, has committed some other, unrelated crime. He's done nothing to you this time, and nothing to worsen or mitigate what he did all those years ago.

So, again, what the fuck has this got to do with you? You're not an expert in law, in social policy, in sentencing, in criminal rehabilitation or indeed in anything relevant to the current shenanigans.

Listen, Denise, the only reason the media is interested in you and your opinions is that you're the human interest. You're the 'devastated mother'. You make the story interesting and 'accessible' to the slack-jawed imbeciles who guzzle these prurient tales.

This is the media, remember, who decided to call your boy 'Jamie', even though you never did - his name was James - because they judged it made the story just a tiny bit more poignant.

They don't give a shit about your opinion, they just want your sad face at the top of each story.

Don't help the bastards sell their tawdry rags.



CozyP said...

Yes but it's showing Jack Straw to be the toe rag that he is.

And it's 'brought' not 'bought'.

Jill said...

I concur.

When it's all over though, I must say that I *am* interested in what he's done, in the sense of what it can tell us about the success/failure/relatedness of the eight years of detention/rehabilitation. Even if only to find out that it was completely unrelated.

JuliaM said...

It's an awful thing for anyone to go through, but I can't subscribe to the idea that the relatives of a murder victim have some kind of absolute moral authority in these cases.

I do think the tabloids are culpable in encouraging her to make these public statements too. Anything to sell a newspaper. No wonder the reporters in 'Spitting Image' were portrayed as pigs...

Anonymous said...

She's from the world capital of self-pity.

Jill said...

I'd agree with Julia also. Surely the whole point of a justice system is to objectively assess a crime and its penalty. It's supposed to be what keeps peace on the streets, unencumbered by personal revenge. While I think sentencing should be individual and take into account the effect on the victim (and/or the victim's family), I don't see it as taking into account the victim's personal opinion. I don't like the victim statements they have in US courts for that reason.

Captain Haddock said...

Hi Jill ..

I don't know whether you're aware or not .. that "Victim Personal Statements" are now taken by the Police here & used in open Court ..

They do not have to be "factual" & can contain all manner of opinion and personal bias ..

watching said...

I'd heard Venables was actually caught lighting up in a Mecca Bingo hall.

banned said...

Agreed, the personal opinions of Denise Bulger are neither here nor there, presumably she is being paid for her outrage?

The charge of having kiddie porn on computer has become almost ubiquitous in cases where we are required to universally condemn the alleged offender, it is becoming tiresome.

Anonymous said...

Ah, Mrs. is not Moby-Dick that seeks thee. It is thou, thou that madly seekest him.

Anonymous said...

you are a twat get a conscience and some respect you sad sad twat.what is wrong with spiteful people like you if ms bulger wants to comment forever on her killers she can just for coping with what she has, am going to see if i can report this vile website or perhaps let the tabloids know about it and let people see you for the wannabebut slightly twisted oscar wilde that you are, but this article isnt pithy or clever just cold and regarding the paragraph that her toddlers murder was many years ago very cruel. twat twat twat. when someone abducts totures and murders you i hope i eat my fish and chips off the paper that carries a very miniscule article on your demise. anyway write a oh so clever answer back but you still a cold heartless shit. bye.....

Unknown said...

g1q81x0p67 p0i13d3d01 w5i66d9u39 d9o02f7m97 d6p10e1m80 a6v76v3k54