I love the way the article, in true-shitty-Guardian-style, suggests that the two fathers of the culprits have been absolved of blame, unlike the mothers, for their offsprings' crime; the two fathers were absent, so they're another matter entirely, for fuck's sake.

Such bad mothers are reluctant to share custody with the seperated father, but they'll expect him to share the blame (like certain elements of the media) when things go awry in his absence.

Quote from Celtic Druid

Such bad mothers are reluctant to share custody with the seperated father, but they'll expect him to share the blame (like certain elements of the media) when things go awry in his absence.

Women sense of fairness is all about ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! and lastly ME!

Nevo

yes! the baby the toddler the little boys emotions and thinking is styled by Momma !

the early childhood years are like fresh concrete and can be shaped in any way for better or worse

then the concrete sets !!

the pattern of thinking and feeling are sealed and virtually immutable

so with a drunkard momma and a hit the root Jack father the boys grew up skewed

Just a quick question, with a slight change of subject, if it was the father, and not the mother, who lost their son in a shopping centre, only for him to be murdered by the people who abducted him, do you think this would be a focus point for the media, the way it absolutely, completely hasn't been when it was the mother who lost him?
I don't mean to be cruel, the whole thing is tragic, but I've always wondered that since it happened. My bet is that the media would have labelled him an incompetent father, with snide remarks like, "he was probably distracted by a short skirt", just my guess.

There are many alchoholic mothers and worse and absent fathers and worse but very few 10 y/o boys who deliberately abduct and murder toddlers.

Quote from Percy

There are many alchoholic mothers and worse and absent fathers and worse but very few 10 y/o boys who deliberately abduct and murder toddlers.

It may be an extreme case and extremely unusual. However, as the violence against children is less extreme it becomes more widespread.

Most inportant of all it shows in the clearest light that the stupidity of judges when they applied the mantra "in the best interest of the children to remain with the mother" and social services fattening up in their offices drinking tea and eating cake.

NEVO

Quote from nevosopelo

It is a very sad story of two children who have murdered a toddler on a railway line.
Did bad parenting turn Thompson and Venables into killers? | UK news | The Guardian

On the news today I've heard that Jon Venables was back in prison. Hardly surprising. This man has his life ruined for something he did when he was a 10 year old child.
I will not discuss here whether the punishment was fair or not. I will say that though he is another victim of the "generally accepted view that the child best interest is with the mother" which in this case is woefully inadequate. The mother of this child was a chronic alcoholic and prone to rages caused by her alcoholism. Most important of all, they suffered the separation of their parents with the father being the absent one.

It is astonishing to see some people failing to make the connection of youth violence with the absentee father.
I look into the future with dread when I see the new generation of teenage pregnancy and divorced women raising children without fathers. Already the streests are the place where the youth of today loiter aimlessly during the day.

The UK. family can no longer sustain this relentless attack. It is weak and corrupted by easy handouts from state benefits.

NEVO

yes im sure their mother taught them just how to throw stones and pour paint down a 2 year olds throat and then batter him and leave him on a railway line for a train to cut him in two.

Quote from 6ame

Just a quick question, with a slight change of subject, if it was the father, and not the mother, who lost their son in a shopping centre, only for him to be murdered by the people who abducted him, do you think this would be a focus point for the media, the way it absolutely, completely hasn't been when it was the mother who lost him?
I don't mean to be cruel, the whole thing is tragic, but I've always wondered that since it happened. My bet is that the media would have labelled him an incompetent father, with snide remarks like, "he was probably distracted by a short skirt", just my guess.

Most probably.

Quote from Maribel

yes im sure their mother taught them just how to throw stones and pour paint down a 2 year olds throat and then batter him and leave him on a railway line for a train to cut him in two.

But if there'd been a father in the equation, maybe the discipline would've been heavier, and this wouldn't have happened.

You can bet that, if the story of a guy who had been bought up by only a mother, in a working-class area, but who had managed to succeed in life and get a top job etc, was being considered, then the mother would have praise heaped upon her, for doing such a good job, ON HER OWN, in raising her son; when a single mother raises a monster, however, idiot 'Guardian' articles insist that absent fathers must share the blame, however.

BD, I doubt it would have made much difference and I'm a person who agrees that the only legitimate way to raise kids is within a family. I mean, let's be real here, this dude is a psychopath, ten years old or not.

And let's stop making idiotic analogies because what it's done here is like extrapolating this male's behaviour and saying this is why men shouldn't be around kids.

Oh, and I agree if his mother was an alcoholic and his father was a better parent, he should have got the child.

let's be real here, this dude is a psychopath, ten years old or not.

Yes. The pathology seems to be more nature than nurture. Most psychopaths don't become killers but some do. Most seem to excercise some deliberate control, out of 'respect for rules' rather than empathy (the lack of which is a defining feature). Most can become quite constructive in business, and indeed do. There are degrees of 'psycho' and this chap Venables showed his colours quite early before he had a chance to learn the rules of being 'unseen'.

Whether the child Venables is a psychopath is a controversial matter to discuss, in my view he was a victim of the incompetence of adults.
The facts are that the child was raised by an unfit mother due to alcoholism. It has not been establish by competent authorities the child has serious mental illness. He was released from custody a number of years ago deemed not to be a danger to the public. He was arrested on allegations and later released without charge.
These are undenyable facts, hence, the child was at the time of the crime in a state of uncontrolable anger because of his personal circumstances.

Any guilty party should be found whithin the adults who were responsible for his welfare. This includes his alcoholic mother.

NEVO

Quote from Percy

Yes. The pathology seems to be more nature than nurture. Most psychopaths don't become killers but some do. Most seem to excercise some deliberate control, out of 'respect for rules' rather than empathy (the lack of which is a defining feature). Most can become quite constructive in business, and indeed do. There are degrees of 'psycho' and this chap Venables showed his colours quite early before he had a chance to learn the rules of being 'unseen'.

I thought that psychopaths exercise control not because of respect for rules or empathy, but since it's part of their manipulative stride. Part of that superficial thing.

nevo, most children raised by alcoholic mothers or that have no parents at all don't kill babies in this way. Actually, they don't kill babies at all. You can believe whatever you'd like to believe and that makes you feel good or support your theory, but it's as farcical as the feminists claim that men rape because of X or Y and how manliness is bad.

Quote from RebelliousVanilla

I thought that psychopaths exercise control not because of respect for rules or empathy, but since it's part of their manipulative stride. Part of that superficial thing.

nevo, most children raised by alcoholic mothers or that have no parents at all don't kill babies in this way. Actually, they don't kill babies at all. You can believe whatever you'd like to believe and that makes you feel good or support your theory, but it's as farcical as the feminists claim that men rape because of X or Y and how manliness is bad.

Second para seconded.

First one though.... yes it is part of a manipulative strategy but not only. Most people learn fairly early on the there are rules to be followed, and some learn that they can make the rules. The 'respect' I spoke of is perhaps the most passive use of the word. The psychopath understands rules. He/she uses rules. They insist on others following the rules. They insist that you follow their rules. That is why they manipulate.

I have spent many years finding, selecting and appointing CEOs and Directors in large companies. There is a 'known' profile for a successful CEO which is close in many respects to a psychopath. They make the rules. They break the rules. They manipulate. They often bully. They are focused on their goals to the exclusion of almost any other consideration. Most though do not randomly kill people ! (Just some do)