Forum: Arts / Debates

Page:
Page 1 of 2: 1 2
UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By PinUpGirlmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Wed Mar 03, 2010 02:29 PM

www.cnn.com . . .

I stumbled across this on CNN. Not only was I bothered by the fact they only served 8 years for murder, they were moved and given new identities. Why do murderers deserve that kind of protection? I say let the lynch mob have them. Why protect people who willingly broke the law?

Generally speaking, I think the UK has a serious leg up on the US. However, this seems so grossly outside common sense and decency, I'm wondering what the logic was behind it. Beyond that, how many more murderers have they released and put into what amounts to witness protection?

27 Replies to UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?

re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By GypsieFreemember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Wed Mar 03, 2010 02:36 PM
Why do murderers deserve that kind of protection? I say let the lynch mob have them. Why protect people who willingly broke the law?


I'm right there with you!! It's more than the fact that they broke the law. Some crimes I wouldn't mind nearly as much.. But MURDER??? It's my opinion that murderers should have to register themselves the same way child molesters do. I mean, they're just as dangerous..... I mean, am I wrong?

I also think the family/friends of a victim has every right to know where their loved ones murderer is and what they are up to. If someone near and dear to my heart was murdered and I found out the murderer was released and given a name change and moved far away I would be FUMING!!!!
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By Clodaghmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Wed Mar 03, 2010 02:54 PM
I didnt click the link but I assume this is the Jamie Bolger case. While I certainly dont agree with it I think the reason they were given new identities was because they were so young (only 10 years old) when they commited the murder.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously? (karma: 1)
By Anon1234567890member has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Wed Mar 03, 2010 03:09 PM
Edited by Louise (29559) on 2010-03-03 15:12:00
I'm not sure what it's like elsewhere in the world, but British people love nothing more than to get involved. Usually it's nothing more than tiresome, idle gossiping. But where child murderers and/or paedophiles are concerned, then a small percentage of the population turn vigilante.

Before Venables and Thomson were even convicted, their families were receiving death threats. Not, "I'm going to kill your murderous ten year old", but "I'm going to kill YOU". So both families were immediately removed from Merseyside and given new identities. Pretty indicative of what was to come.

Every few months stories here crop up about wrongly-accused paedophiles being killed. It's not too far fetched to assume that someone would go after Venables and Thomson and kill the wrong person instead.

But I guess the main piece of logic behind it is that the British public are not the legal system. Why bother having a legal system if you're going to let the public implement any punishment they wish on whomever they wish?

James Bulger's mother knows where Thomson is. She tracked him down, saw him, followed him. She felt like she wanted to beat the crap out of him, but in her own words she was "paralysed by hatred". She is the ONLY person who would have the right to "lynch" them. Not the average British person, no connection to the family or even the area, getting involved, becoming a vigilante, committing a murder themselves. I'd rather they have new identities than pay to house even more criminals. Giving them new identities prevents the creation of new murderers. Why is it okay that someone with absolutely no bleedin' connection to this case would have the opportunity to kill them? That pisses me off about as much as the guy who shot JFK's assassinator. Conspiracy theories aside, it just isn't any of your (the collective your) damn business.

Now I really don't know why, genuinely, but I am somewhat intrigued by the fact that you didn't mention the age Venables and Thomson were when they murdered James. I knew what the link was so I didn't actually click on it until this thought occurred to me as I assumed the article hadn't mentioned it, so you wouldn't know.

For people who don't click on the link either -

The reason this is news again after 17 years, is that Venables (under his new identity) has committed some unknown offence and is back in custody. Let me make it clear that we didn't just let these men out with new names and no supervision. They are on life licence, meaning they are checked up on ALL the time. They are not allowed to contact each other or either of their families. Obviouly not Denise Fergus, either. They're not allowed to go anywhere near Merseyside, and plenty of other unknown conditions aside. He could simply have stolen a packet of crisps from the corner shop - and he's hauled back into prison immediately. It's not as if he has free reign to murder again; no-one in the know would take their eyes off him long enough.

Bad reporting by CNN, too. "Just" eight years into a life sentence? Are they not aware that a life sentence is 12 years in this stupid country? Eight years is "most" of a life sentence here. I have no idea who Alan Caplin is but he obviously doesn't know exactly what this "life licence" entails.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By GypsieFreemember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Wed Mar 03, 2010 03:14 PM
Edited by GypsieFree (152616) on 2010-03-03 15:16:00
Edited by GypsieFree (152616) on 2010-03-03 15:17:56
Edited by GypsieFree (152616) on 2010-03-03 15:19:24
Hmm, maybe I should have read the article before jumping to the defense mode.

I do think if it's a child who committed a murder they should have a second chance at life.. Kids make mistakes.. and yes murder is a huge giant awful one, and it's unforgivable, but... Kids don't understand the extent of their actions the way adults do.. If someone can get off for being mentally challenged or "crazy" I think the same should apply for a child.. Because neither exactly knows the extent of their actions.

For any average murdering SOAB.. no, lock them up, throw away the key, and if they do ever get out.. I hope they get ridiculed for the rest of their existence. But a child should have the chance to redeem themselves..

I was watching a story on the Biography channel the other day.. This kid murdered his neighbor when he was 8 in Florida.. They were playing cloud 9 and she did it to him first and he was fine, and when he did it...she never woke up. Out of fear of getting in a lot of trouble he hid her under his bed and ran away... He was then caught and sentenced to LIFE in PRISON. NO chance of parole. The guy is now 28, completely distraught over what he did.. He has pictures of her in his cell, he was bawling during the interview when he had to explain what had happened.. He clearly realizes that he messed up. He clearly realizes the extent of his actions and you can tell by listening to him that he isn't a vicious murdering piece of crap loser... He cares about his family, and he cares about the family of the little girl he killed.

Should he have the chance ot start over? ABSOLUTELY. Should the cop in my city that murdered his girlfriend and threw her in the river hoping to never have it come back to him get a second chance? hell no

However, I think it should be case by case. The boys in this story did awful things.. They didnt just accidentally kill someone... there was a lot of torture involved if I remember correctly.. That's some sick twisted stuff.. Enough to realize there is something severely wrong in their heads..
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By Rachel_Whomember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Wed Mar 03, 2010 03:15 PM
Edited by Rachel_Who (141654) on 2010-03-03 15:17:23
Edited by Rachel_Who (141654) on 2010-03-03 15:22:04
I totally agree! I have a severe problem with the criminal justice system here anyway.

These horrible boys didn't just kill the 2 year old child, they tortured him first!

They got new identities due to them being below the age of criminal responsibility. Which to me seem stupid, even at 10 you know taking a little boy away from his mother and killing him is wrong :-/

I know the whole argument is due to them being young and giving a second chance but it really does bother me, that people who do things like that are just wandering around in society. I know they are watched but it does seem scary.

Hmm just my two cents on the matter. We were discussing this at work today, and not one person agreed with the system! Its not just this cas which i disagree with anyway, I have personal issues with this criminal justice system anyway so I am more biased!

After Edit- I realize i sound like a crazy vigilante!! I do think they deserve a second chance (everyone does) I just think it happens to quickly in some cases.

p.s. The press have blown this case WAAAYY out of proportion and alot of people actually have no idea what went on, they just believe two kids killed a baby and just got let out and got a perfect life WHICH IS NOT THE CASE!! :P
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By nic_dancezonemember has saluted, click to view salute photos
On Wed Mar 03, 2010 03:51 PM
Do not quote me on this but I am sure when we had someone come in and talk about prisons to our secondary school kids they said that the law had to be changed so they could be tried for the murder because of the horrific nature of it. There were questions whether they did understand what they did etc.

I personally do not think they should have been released so soon if at all. They did have until they were 21 to be in juvenile prison and treated as such.

Those outside of the UK please understand that this was a very exceptional case and one reason its caused so much discussion. x
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By AlwaysOnStagePremium member
On Wed Mar 03, 2010 05:32 PM
If they are going to be released from prison at all, I think it should be done in a way which allows them the best chance at a reformed life. Really, I think that a murderer (if convicted to the best possible degree) should never be released again. However, if we are going to accept that prison sentences are limited (and thus, attempting to reform said person) then they SHOULD be given a new identity.

This would prevent people from prejudicing against them, making their hopefully reformed lives harder, it would prevent crazies from coming to try to kill THEM (reducing probability for crime), and I think overall success would be better. This is, of course, on the stipulation that the government still checks-up on the ex-con.

For this specific case, it makes even more sense because they were 10 when the crime was committed, it was an extremely high-profile case, and the wounds have been opened and re-opened.

I don't know...I don't feel like this is such an awful idea. It's awful that it's needed, but it seems to be more logical than not.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By PinUpGirlmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Wed Mar 03, 2010 08:35 PM
I disagree that they didn't know what they were doing. It's perfectly plausible that a 10 year old could be developing psychopathy or even already be there. When I was 10, I knew full well that taking another life was wrong. It wasn't like they were playing with the kid and he hit his head or something and died.

Their families shouldn't have to suffer for what they did, but I don't think they should have the protection of the law, mistaken identities or not. I'd like to know what he did to get himself taken back into custody, but I give it a 50/50 shot of them telling.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously? (karma: 1)
By Anon1234567890member has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Thu Mar 04, 2010 02:58 AM
I hope they get ridiculed for the rest of their existence

Ridiculed? Really? How naive. You don't get ridiculed for committing a murder, for heaven's sake! At best you get a brick through your window; at worst you end up dead yourself. Headshaker, that one.

Do not quote me on this but I am sure when we had someone come in and talk about prisons to our secondary school kids they said that the law had to be changed so they could be tried for the murder because of the horrific nature of it. There were questions whether they did understand what they did etc.

Yes, they had an adult trial instead of a children's trial. Basically that means it was public - the press gallery was packed everyday, the public gallery likewise, they weren't allowed to have their parents in the dock with them (they each sat with two social workers), the judge etc were in full regalia and everything was done to the letter of tradition. In juvenile trials days are shorter, words are dumbed down, and the flipping paparazzi aren't there. At ten years old, coming from neglectful families and having the bare minimum of education for their age, I find it implausible that they had the slightest idea what was going on in court.

I HATE the excuse "oh, but I had a horrible childhood". I think most people have horrible childhoods and manage to NOT kill people. And I still think these two should have served longer in jail because a) 12 years is a pathetic tariff to set for life imprisonment and b) I don't think sentences should be shortened ever, for any reason. BUT they had had virtually no education and were given no guidance at home. I can't be bothered to go and check now but I'm pretty sure there were broken homes, poor estates, drug addiction, alcoholism, abuse and god knows what else going on. Yeah, people can come through that without becoming murderers. But couple that with a total lack of education and no, I think it's entirely reasonable that these boys didn't fully understand what they were doing at the time.

You know, their original aim was to push a kid in front of a car on the busy road outside the shopping centre to cause a big traffic jam. To cause a big traffic jam. How childlike and simple is that? They are on record as having said that. MOST kids want to cause a bit of mayhem. Obviously it rarely involves pushing a kid in front of a car, but you get the point.

I also kind of understand why they tortured him. As a kid you constantly test the boundaries. MOST ten year olds do that within a framework of right and wrong. I don't think we can judge what these kids did based on what WE knew at ten. At ten I was above average and had been in school for getting on for six years. They were truants - they were skipping school that day - I genuinely think it's plausible that their sense of right and wrong was severely underdeveloped. Perhaps torturing James was their primitive, subconcious way of developing it. I did naughty things to test my parents - hid car keys, wrote on walls, I even stole little things from shops once or twice. But I was being parented well; I had a grasp of "good" and "naughty", so my actions were much, much tamer.

I'm not aiming to sound like an apologist. I think they should still be in prison; I think 'life' should mean at least twenty-five years regardless of your age at the time of the crime. But I don't think these boys are necessarily evil - just little asbo s*'*s with disgusting parents.

I personally think that all Venables is guilty of this time is something like trying to contact Thomson. And I don't think there'd be any evil intent, even though it's generally accepted that Thomson was the ringleader. Some people (just friends, not experts) have suggested he was trying to get revenge on Thomson - I doubt it. I think he's probably just still struggling to come to terms with it, and perhaps he just wanted to talk to the only person who 100% understood what was going on with them that day.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By Heartmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Thu Mar 04, 2010 08:30 AM
The government has the responsibility to protect everyone. INCLUDING criminals, and yes, INCLUDING murderers. If they fear that someone is in harm's way they have a responsibility and a duty to do everything in their power to protect them.

If you were accused of a crime, you would want the same thing. People are people no matter what they have done.

In the US a minor who commits a crime can only be held until they are 18. Yes, including murder. Some can be tried as adults, but there are age restrictions on that, and generally someone as young as 10 would never get an adult trial. So I'm not surprised they were released, and in fact think it's pretty fair... I don't think you can hold someone for life for something they did when they were ten years old, no matter how heinous.

People are often so caught up in the mindset of "they deserve it" that they don't realize how hard life can be if you are a felon. You are a total outcast from society. You can't get a good job, you are a social outcast if anyone finds out, if you do anything wrong (which you might be driven to do, from the stress of the first do, or for purely practical means - how are you going to earn money?) you are at risk of going back to prison for an even longer sentence. In the US, they're even disenfranchised. In a lot of cases this attitude of vigilantism and not allowing people a "second chance" in society just causes even more crime. So honestly, I think "witness protection" for some criminals is totally justified, and probably should be used more often.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By Bridgetbeemember has saluted, click to view salute photos
On Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:57 PM
^ I agree with Heart. What these boys did was obviously a horrible disgusting thing BUT they have served the time they were sentenced to. I absolutely think that the sentence was not long enough, in fact it was shockingly short. However this is the fault of the flawed justice system, not the fault of the criminals in it. Surely it is better that Thomson and Venables are given an oppotunity to live a decent and honest life within the law? Protecting their identity is the only was this could happen. What they did was an awful thing but they have completed the punishment they were given, and it would be terrible if people discovered who they are and went on to commit crimes themselves.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By BooPopsmember has saluted, click to view salute photos
On Mon Mar 08, 2010 01:10 PM
Edited by BooPops (184161) on 2010-03-08 13:12:41 Forgot to add something
At the time this happened, I was also 2 years old (as well as Jamie Bulger) and I was in the same country, so my mum has always told me all she could think of was how his mum must have felt. I feel sickened every time I read or hear about this murder, but my opinion has actually changed over the years.

Originally, I thought why protect them? They deserve to be battered by anyone and everyone who could get their hands on them. However, they were given protection so they could get another chance at life. Although I can see why they were given protection, I think they should have been locked up purely to protect the general public. If 10 year old kids could do something like this, what are they going to be capable of when they grow up?

I think the reason they got let off so lightly, and got another chance at normal life, was because what they did wasn't all their fault. Those who don't know the full story, the two boys lived a debauched life with drunken parents who let him watch the most horrific films, and from a young age both of the killers were violent towards other kids in the classroom. Their parents are partly to blame for this, it wasn't all their fault.

Edit: Forgot to add that very, very few people in the UK have been given new identities. There are only several people here who are currently protected like that.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By sparklystars
On Mon Mar 08, 2010 01:46 PM
I'm sorry I haven't read all of the comments as yet, but I will go back and read them shortly.

I just wanted to point out that what Venables and Thompson did was not some childhood game gone wrong. They abducted a toddler, lead him to some secluded area near a railway track, tortured him and killed. It was horrific, and if you ask me, intentional. It wasn't a case of OOPS it was an accident, it was drawn out over possible hours. Thats intentional I reckon.

Who seriously would consider that what these two did is in any way behaviour that deserves new identities, protection, the ability to go out and work again? Women are stoned to death in some countries for speaking when they shouldn't and we seriously think it's ok to give these guys a second chance?

Yes, I know they were only kids themselves when they did this, but hello! Venables is now being retained for child pornography offences. I don't care what anyone says, no matter what age you are (actually ESPECIALLY when you're 10 years old) it is not normal to do what these kids did. I've studied child psychology, behaviour, learning etc. for many years now and everything I've learned would tell me no, this isn't normal. This is also the opinion of pretty much all of my tutors with the exception of one or two who like to make controversial statements to make us think. I've worked with children and young people (in Europe's murder capital actually) for going on 7 years now and never in all that time have I met a kid who I thought was capable of anything like this.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the death penalty system, I don't really believe in that either but I just can't get away from the fact that this guy is seriously dangerous and I certainly don't like the idea of him prowling around under a new identity. Which is a complete waste of money since he seems to enjoy flaunting his true identity anyway, probably for a 'laugh'.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By BeautifulMistakemember has saluted, click to view salute photos
On Tue Mar 09, 2010 07:29 AM
My thoughts aren't very logical. They're kind of all over the place.

I know and agree that the government has to protect criminals. It makes sense. Some families will go and kill the person who murdered their son/daughter/father/mother/etc. and a murder for a murder does nothing.

But in my mind, it's also, the person murdered somebody and that was their choice so they should have to live with it. Of course people are going to hate you and wherever you go people are going to be leery and do whatever when they learn you are a murderer, but you chose to kill somebody so they should have to suffer through that.

In this case, with the kids, first off I do not understand how a 10 year old can kill somebody. To think like that and to be able to plan it out like that. It's crazy. And quite sickening to be honest. But in the case of children, I think they do have the right to a second chance at life. Chances are if they seriously are that messed up in the head, they will do it again and get sent to jail again. But at that age, they should be given a second chance.

Sorry, if none of it makes sense. I'm short on time so I'm typing it out quickly and not quite sure if I'm saying it how I want to say it.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously? (karma: 3)
By Anon1234567890member has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:11 PM
Edited by Louise (29559) on 2010-03-09 12:19:03
Venables is now being retained for child pornography offences.
Put down your copy of the Daily Mail. The government has released no details other than "serious allegations". One paper said he attacked a workmate; another said he raped a grown woman; and for some reason you've pulled child porn allegations out of your ass. Passing off far-right, unsubstatiated gossip off as the god-honest truth is misleading to people outside of Britain and doesn't reflect well on you, either.

Women are stoned to death in some countries for speaking when they shouldn't and we seriously think it's ok to give these guys a second chance?
You're condoning stoning? Because if you're not, that statement makes absolutely no sense.

it is not normal to do what these kids did.
Who said it was? Christ on a bike, are you really implying that people think it WAS normal? "Oh yeah, they murdered a small boy, as you do, no big deal". WHAT?! By the way, in all of your expert studies, did you never come across abnormal psychology; or to give it its PC name, individual difference? Were your tutors really so remiss as to not impress upon you that psychologically abnormal or underdeveloped does not equal 'evil'? :?

Which is a complete waste of money since he seems to enjoy flaunting his true identity anyway, probably for a 'laugh'.
Professional opinion currently concurs that on the outside, Venables was suicidal and unable to cope with hiding his past. Having to remember an entirely new family history and fabricated past has got to be pretty difficult, and they think he has had a nervous breakdown. It has been implied that he would get blind drunk then break down and tell people who he really was, inviting them to "do whatever you want with me". Experts say he is unable to commit suicide himself so is unmasking himself as a way of trying to get others to cause him harm. Kinda like boyfriends who are mean to their girlfriends so that they don't have to do the dumping. It's also thought that he might feel being murderered is the only "correct" death for him, in his fragile mental state. Despite the fact that he's now 27 and passed A Levels while in juvenile detention, it does seem feasible that he could only now be beginning to think "s!!t, that was me, I did that. What the hell have I done?!" Anyway, in short, doesn't sound much like he's flaunting it to me.

To think like that and to be able to plan it out like that.
Everything I've read about the case said they didn't plan James' murder as it occurred. What they planned was to get two children and push them in front of a car to create a big traffic jam. They planned a big traffic jam. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they had colluded ahead of time and said "okay so we'll get a kid, take him here, and do this to him". No. They deviated from an original plan, yes, but the murder as it occurred is not thought to have been planned.


-------


Sigh. I wish The Sun would stick to Cheryl and Ashley and leave the real news to someone who's not going to SENSATIONALISE it and strategically use font styles and CAPITAL LETTERS to make a story seem SO MUCH MORE DRAMATIC. Ugh.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By sparklystars
On Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:15 PM
Edited by sparklystars (148903) on 2010-03-09 12:20:41
^ Oh dear. Thats all I have to say.

*My point about stoning? INNOCENT women are killed for speaking out of turn or for showing too much skin or whatever 'crime' takes the stoners fancy that day and it's ok for someone who KILLED a tiny little boy to be given a whole new identity, be able to go out and work and start life over again? Really??

I also however agree with what someone else mentioned about kids who commit crimes being able to have a second chance since they're so young, but really my head just can't get around this one. As much as I would love to think he could change I really don't believe it.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously? (karma: 1)
By Anon1234567890member has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:19 PM
Edited by Louise (29559) on 2010-03-09 12:32:03
You really shouldn't have bothered, then.


EDIT - Not cool of you to edit your post when someone has already replied to it as it stood. Particularly if you add things that change the context of my reply. To clarify, you originally only posted the first sentence of ^ that, and seem to have only added to it to make my post (this one) look redundant and pissy. No, not cool at all.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By sparklystars
On Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:24 PM
And what is your opinion exactly? Since all I see from you is whinge whinge whinge and criticism of what others, or more specifically I have to say on this matter whilst funnily enough you fail to provide us with your wisdom.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously? (karma: 1)
By Anon1234567890member has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:39 PM
Edited by Louise (29559) on 2010-03-09 12:42:11
Edited by Louise (29559) on 2010-03-09 12:43:57
Edited by Louise (29559) on 2010-03-09 12:46:28
^ I'm sorry, I don't have a clue what you just said. My opinion is pretty clear; here it is in tiny short sentences.

I agree with the decision to give them both new identities.

I believe they were severely mentally underdeveloped at the time of James' murder. I don't believe they fully understood what they were doing.

Details of Venable's re-arrest have not been made public, therefore it is my opinion that you posting hearsay is unconstructive.



Your point about stoning still makes no sense, because stoning is not condoned in this country. You cannot apply another country's laws to a case/cases in this country. Plus the fact that they are totally different circumstances. What the heck does stoning a woman have to do with murdering a child? I could kind of, sort of understand if you made a connection there, but you're not doing that. You're actually making some weird connection between stoning a woman to death in the Middle East and re-releasing a criminal on life license in England. Or are you equating speaking out of turn to murdering a little boy? Read it five times now and I'm still no closer. You're not even comparing apples to oranges because they're both fruit. You're comparing a fish to a brick.

I've used quote boxes for what, two other posters besides you? I'm hardly picking on you, I just happen to disagree with you a little more than with them. That's permitted. You're also yet to clarify why, in fact "oh dear" is "all you have to say". It's a shame you don't care to discuss further and would prefer to sling mud at me instead of expanding your point.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By sparklystars
On Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:45 PM
^ Yeah that's pretty much just rude.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By Heartmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:46 PM
Edited by Heart (21721) on 2010-03-09 12:47:14
LOL no it's not, honey. This is the debates board. Step up to the plate.

I would add more but Louise has pretty much got this covered.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By sparklystars
On Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:50 PM
I disagree. There's a way to go about debating with someone and then there's just plain rude, for example I don't need things broken down into tiny sentences thanks
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By Anon1234567890member has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member
On Tue Mar 09, 2010 01:04 PM
^ Well if you didn't understand it first time round, and you clearly stated that you didn't, isn't it actually very good of me to clarify for you?

Look, I'm not sitting here seething in anger. You seem to imply that I'm bullying you or something. This is a topic that I want to discuss because it interests me, but at the first sign of disagreement you just shut down. Bad debate etiquette. If you don't want to participate further, don't, that's fine. But one-line digs add absolutely nothing. I was not rude - you were.
re: UK Gives Murders New Identities? Seriously?
By sparklystars
On Tue Mar 09, 2010 01:12 PM
I'm not saying you were bullying me, not at all, that would definitely be taking things too far
Page:
Page 1 of 2: 1 2

ReplySendWatch

Powered by XP Experience Server.
Copyright ©1999-2021 XP.COM, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
XL
LG
MD
SM
XS
XL
LG
MD
SM
XS