Growing up in Britain there were two names that were known by people all over the nation. The names were Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. Nothing assures notoriety and infamy more than a serial child killer. The fact that they were a couple made their crimes all the more gruesome and unique. Without dragging up all the old details of their many evil crimes, suffice to say that they both fully merited their public reputation as being among the two sickest people that has country has ever had the misfortune to be blighted by.
You would think that in such a case no one would surely champion the case of either. Wrong. Not only did someone lobby on behalf of Hindley but that someone was indeed a Lord.
The following from his Wiki bio:
Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford
‘He gained a reputation for eccentricity, becoming known for his efforts to rehabilitate offenders and in particular campaigning for the parole and release from prison of the Moors murderer Myra Hindley.
In 1985, he condemned the Parole Board’s decision not to consider Hindley’s release for another five years as “barbaric”, and his campaign for Hindley continued even after she admitted to two more murders in 1986. This development strengthened public and media allegations that Hindley’s remorse was nothing more than a ploy to improve her chances of parole.
In March 1996, Longford backed up Hindley’s claim in an Oxford University magazine that she was still in prison so that the Conservative government would gain votes. This claim was met with anger by the mothers of two of the Moors Murders victims, including Ann West, who repeated her threat to kill Hindley if she was ever released.
Hindley died in November 2002, having never been paroled. The story of Longford’s campaign to free Hindley was told in the Channel 4 film Longford in 2006.’
So there you have it. We had a Lord at that time who, for a long time, campaigned for Hindley to be paroled. He described her imprisonment as “barbaric”. And he kept on doing it even after she admitted to two additional murders.
Not sure about you but I really wonder about anyone that campaigns or lobbies of behalf of child murderers. Call me old fashioned, but it seems a bizarre cause to decide to take up. What does it tell you about such a person? What would it tell you about us if we had spent the past month lobbying for people to leave the brothers be as they were no threat and were “misunderstood”?
Thankfully about 99% of people that we hear from on FB and our site know right from wrong. Then there are about 1% out there who think they are being “intellectual” or clever to invent all manner of excuses to almost justify the actions of evil men and give them a free pass. They usually begin by telling you they aren’t excusing them – then they go on to do precisely that. The excuses will go something like this…
“Social services needs more funding and this wouldn’t have happened.”
“The NHS needs more funding and this wouldn’t have happened.”
“People have issues. You don’t know what sort of upbringing they had.”
“They may have gotten in with a bad crowd.”
“There could have been drugs involved.”
And so on.
These same tedious people can be found haunting any tragedy and offering their questionable excuses for the most vile of scum. They almost never make mention of the victims. They have no concept of personal responsibility in themselves or in others.
Be it Lord Longford back in the day with Hindley or be it some random trying to use sophistry to essentially excuse people like the brothers I always ask the same question – Why? Who in their right head would take time out and actually try to convince society that such people aren’t so bad after all? There are a thousand well deserving causes they could support so why would anyone choose to take up the case for child killers and generic sadistic scum? I am actually more at a loss over that than I am over the actions of the perpetrators.
What is their motive? I think there could be a number of plausible explanations. The first is that they seek to court controversy at any price. A form of extreme attention seeking just for the sake of attention. The next reason is that they are pseudo intellectuals. They want to sound clever by way of a long word salad that really tells the reader nothing. The third reason is that they are remarkably naive to the point of dangerous. They seem to want to believe that there MUST be some good in these people and feel compelled to find it and somehow “prove everyone wrong”. The fourth reason is maybe the most sinister – maybe they themselves had some dark secrets and that’s why they want to make excuses for evil men and women. By excusing them they excuse themselves.
There are others whose reaction to people like the brothers will be “The state let them down”. Unless we are now living in the old Soviet Union the state are NOT responsible for the bad choices of others. Never have been. Never should be. I am sick of hearing people whine and bitch as if the state itself is a surrogate parent. It only suits the state for you to see them that way, they want society to rely on them for everything. It makes it easier to manage you.
If some slut of a women opens her legs to some scum bag of a guy and doesn’t have the brain cell to use protection, why should it later fall upon the state to have to remove the child from the inevitable filth, why should it be down to the state to place them in care homes, and why should the state have to later sweep up the misery that their badly raised sprog causes? Why is it not HER responsibility? And his. How about acting like beings with an IQ above 50? If a women can barely look after herself then what in God’s name is she doing getting herself pregnant?
If a women chooses a man that strangles the pet cat and sexually abuses the kids, then why is that the fault or responsibility of the state? If a women chooses a man who later murders the child she had with another man, then how has this got anything to do with the state? There are too many in society whose solution to everything is to want to pour more of other peoples money into a failed system. Why should we even need this hugely expensive apparatus just to clean up the shit trail that irresponsible and pathetic people leave because they are too bone idle or useless to look after the kid or pet THEY CHOSE to have?
I got my dog from the city cat and dog home five years ago. He had been picked up as a stray who no one had claimed. The place was jam packed full of dogs, especially staffies. Is it the fault of the state that so many dipshit morons can’t think getting a dog through and is it the fault of the state that the same dipshit morons eventually have the dog removed or give it up?
I’m not much of a drinker. If I walk through my city on a Friday or Saturday night it is full of drunken arseholes that are a pest or a danger to others. Up to 80% of violent crime is alcohol related. Somehow this will be the fault of the state as well. No way is it the fault of feckless puddle slurpers who can’t conduct themselves properly on a night out.
There seems to be no shortage of hand wringing weirdos out there who live to make excuses for human excrement. It’s as if they want to take individual responsibility away entirely and blame “muh government” or “muh under-funding”.
I’m sick of hearing sob stories about how a paedophile or dog torturer had a “challenging past”. Well cry me a huge river of tears. Plenty of people have hugely challenging pasts but for some mysterious reason they don’t use it to hide behind their bad choices all the time.
In my book these apologists are by extension an enemy as well as the perpetrators. Any time you see one online or anywhere – make sure you call them out and shame them and encourage others to do likewise.
Above: Longford. Liked to take up the cause of demented child torturers.