Bulger killer back in jail

[ArabHibee]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8546528.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8546528.stm)

[PC Stamp]

And he should stay there for a very long time, along with the other evil barsteward that's presently roaming free on licence.

[Jonnyboy]

And he should stay there for a very long time, along with the other evil barsteward that's presently roaming free on licence.

Agreed :agree:

As for Sutcliffe, I hope he rots in hell

[ArabHibee]

I watched a documentary about this a few months ago. Very harrowing what they did to that little boy. Couldn't believe it when it told you that they had tried to 'steal' another child earlier on in the day.

[PC Stamp]

Agreed :agree:

As for Sutcliffe, I hope he rots in hell

Read the other day that he is to request that he be advised of the actual tarriff he has to serve, being that the minimum of 30 years recommended when he was sentenced is up next year!

I couldn't believe that the 30 years are almost up for starters and I certainly can't believe his audacity in asking for the actual term he's going to be expected to serve. Hopefully the legal big wigs will come back and say "You'll die in prison Mr Sutcliffe."

[Sylar]

Here's hoping he's used as currency, beaten and eventually dies from the most disfiguring and agonising illness known to man - personification of evil.

I recall studying the case of Jamie Bulger when I done RMPS at high school, and there wasn't a dry eye in the classroom - utterly horrific attack.

They should never have been allowed out in the first place - I'm sure there were stories a while back that the other boy (Thompson) had been convicted of a murder/assault in Australia, though I think it turned out to be false on that occasion. Absolutely no surprise that one of them is back behind bars - these people don't change.

[Jonnyboy]

Read the other day that he is to request that he be advised of the actual tarriff he has to serve, being that the minimum of 30 years recommended when he was sentenced is up next year!

I couldn't believe that the 30 years are almost up for starters and I certainly can't believe his audacity in asking for the actual term he's going to be expected to serve. Hopefully the legal big wigs will come back and say "You'll die in prison Mr Sutcliffe."

Was on the news tonight saying court to decide his future

If these senior judges let him out they will provide conclusive proof that they are totally out of touch with reality

[SteveHFC]

I hope he rots in hell.

[Lucius Apuleius]

I thought we lived in a democracy. The common thoughts when I speak to anyone about the legal system is that it is far too lenient on people like this whilst punishing people inappropiately for minor crimes or even percieved crimes like defending your own home, yet nothing ever changes. Why is that? If we all believe there should be greater penalties and life should mean life why has it never changed? What is the point of giving someone a 20 year sentence and letting them out in 10? If we are going to let them out in ten, why not just give them a ten year sentence in the first place? Never understood that to be honest.

[Hibbyradge]

I thought we lived in a democracy. The common thoughts when I speak to anyone about the legal system is that it is far too lenient on people like this whilst punishing people inappropiately for minor crimes or even percieved crimes like defending your own home, yet nothing ever changes. Why is that? If we all believe there should be greater penalties and life should mean life why has it never changed? What is the point of giving someone a 20 year sentence and letting them out in 10? If we are going to let them out in ten, why not just give them a ten year sentence in the first place? Never understood that to be honest.

It's about managing dangerous, anti-social people, I guess. Controling their behaviour whilst in jail as well as giving them the chance to prove they are no longer a threat, I suppose.

If 20 years meant 20 years, what's the incentive to co-operate with the wardens etc?

[Steve-O]

I'd just like to point out to all the knee-jerkers on this thread that a breach of conditions can be something relatively minor.

The decision to be made is presumably whether the breach justifies bringing him back to serve more jail time (he'd become eligible for parole at some stage) or whether some alterations need to be made to his conditions, or there could be no case to answer.

The argument over whether he should have been let out in the first place is a completely different matter.

[Steve-O]

I thought we lived in a democracy. The common thoughts when I speak to anyone about the legal system is that it is far too lenient on people like this whilst punishing people inappropiately for minor crimes or even percieved crimes like defending your own home, yet nothing ever changes. Why is that? If we all believe there should be greater penalties and life should mean life why has it never changed? What is the point of giving someone a 20 year sentence and letting them out in 10? If we are going to let them out in ten, why not just give them a ten year sentence in the first place? Never understood that to be honest.

Because a 10 year sentence means they will be monitored for 10 years whether in jail or not, and a 20 year sentence means they will be monitored for 20 years whether in jail or not.

For one thing, there is simply not the capacity in prisons to keep everyone in for the full sentence, and for another, part of a sentence is geared towards trying to make the person a functioning member of society BEFORE completing their sentence. Thus, they will be reintegrated into society under supervised conditions rather than walking out of the prison door one day with no subsequent supervision whatsoever.

It is a fact that countries with systems of parole have less incidences of re-offending than countries that do not.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Here's hoping he's used as currency, beaten and eventually dies from the most disfiguring and agonising illness known to man

Why?


They should never have been allowed out in the first place - I'm sure there were stories a while back that the other boy (Thompson) had been convicted of a murder/assault in Australia, though I think it turned out to be false on that occasion. Absolutely no surprise that one of them is back behind bars - these people don't change.

Quite, so what's the relevance?

[CropleyWasGod]

Okay, I'm bored at work today, so I'm going to play Devil's Advocate.

Does no-one believe in the concepts of rehabilitation or redemption?

[Steve-O]

Okay, I'm bored at work today, so I'm going to play Devil's Advocate.

Does no-one believe in the concepts of rehabilitation or redemption?

Not on Hibs.Net it would appear!

Throw away the key! Chop off their balls! I hope they get killed in prison by prisoners who have also done terrible things!

:rolleyes:

[hibsbollah]

These people don't change.

Really? If you have evidence to back up this view you should pass it on to the relevant authorities. We'd save a fortune on all these costly rehabilitation programmes:agree:

[J-C]

Re Bulger killer, couldn't believe in the first instance that he and his evil pal were released after only 9 yrs, now he's back in after breaking his parol, a leopard never changes it's spots so they say. :confused:

As for Sutcliffe, how on earth was this man ever allowed to change his name by deed poll, surely as a serial killer his name should stick forever, unless his lawyers know something we don't. Also read his psychiatrist in jail said he'd responded well therapy, he's a multiple serial killer, he knows what he's doing, he's conned people all his life by leading a double life without anyone realising it, of course he's responding to treatment cause he knows there's a chance of getting out.:grr:

[Twa Cairpets]

Its still hard to believe that the Bulger killers were only ten years old at the time. I coach a kids football team at that age, and it beggars belief that anyone that young could do what they did. But, of course, they did do it.

I'm all for rehabilitation, and release when debt has been paid, but for the truly exceptional acts of anti-humanity such as the Bulger killers and Sutcliffe, I think that there is an almost unarguable argument in favour of once they are in, they are in.

As a left-leaning liberal minded individual (although one would hope not a wishy washy surrender monkey), I would find it very, very hard to be comfortable with Venables, Sutcliffe or Thompson moving in next door. if I wouldnt want it, how could I justify it to someone else without being accused of nimbyism?

[sg7nil]

I think it's possible for people to make one mistake in life and manage to repent it and change.

Repeat offenders however are a differnt case, if having already done time you decide that you want to risk it again, then in my rules there'd be not only no parole the second time, but the time they got off for "good behavior" the first time would be tacked back on instantly with no right of appeal!

That way if someone has served 10 years of a 20 year sentence and gets out and reoffends, the starting point for their new term will be ten years plus whatever taffiff their new offence carries.

May sound harsh, but bear in mind that very few prople get prison sentences for first offences anyway, so in reality this would only apply in the most part to seriously repeat offenders...

Oh and by the way ... for serial killers where there is NO DOUBT that they did it, life would mean life, no parole .. and (showing my humane side here), I'd give the prisoners a choice of execution, to spare the taxpayer keeping an un-rehabilitateable (is that a word) beast alive for years, it would also spare them from spending years with no hope rotting in a cell. A real win-win situation!

[LiverpoolHibs]

Its still hard to believe that the Bulger killers were only ten years old at the time. I coach a kids football team at that age, and it beggars belief that anyone that young could do what they did. But, of course, they did do it.

I'm all for rehabilitation, and release when debt has been paid, but for the truly exceptional acts of anti-humanity such as the Bulger killers and Sutcliffe, I think that there is an almost unarguable argument in favour of once they are in, they are in.

As a left-leaning liberal minded individual (although one would hope not a wishy washy surrender monkey), I would find it very, very hard to be comfortable with Venables, Sutcliffe or Thompson moving in next door. if I wouldnt want it, how could I justify it to someone else without being accused of nimbyism?

Really? There's an 'almost unarguable argument' for jailing two ten year old boys for the rest of their lives? What is it?

Claims of 'exceptional acts of anti-humanity' (to what extent were their actions truly 'exceptional'? No-one knows, precisely because of the nature of the coverage and the trial. Between the murders by Mary Bell and the murder of James Bulger there were twelve other cases of child murders by other children) or that they are 'the personification of evil' just have no merit whatsoever; it's exactly what made their trial such an absolute travesty in the first place - nothing was done to determine how they could have done what they did, why they did it or what the best way to deal with it was both for the case at hand and in terms of learning something for the future.

The frenzied response just determined that they were 'evil' so nothing needed to be learnt. And when you get into that sort of territory it absolves everyone of a responsibility for a proper judicial process and completely shuts down any form of discussion or insight that someone may have.

[khib70]

Really? There's an 'almost unarguable argument' for jailing two ten year old boys for the rest of their lives? What is it?

Claims of 'exceptional acts of anti-humanity' (to what extent were their actions truly 'exceptional'? No-one knows, precisely because of the nature of the coverage and the trial. Between the murders by Mary Bell and the murder of James Bulger there were twelve other cases of child murders by other children) or that they are 'the personification of evil' just have no merit whatsoever; it's exactly what made their trial such an absolute travesty in the first place - nothing was done to determine how they could have done what they did, why they did it or what the best way to deal with it was both for the case at hand and in terms of learning something for the future.

The frenzied response just determined that they were 'evil' so nothing needed to be learnt. And when you get into that sort of territory it absolves everyone of a responsibility for a proper judicial process and completely shuts down any form of discussion or insight that someone may have.
:top marks. Totally agree. The bandying about of abstract and meaningless concepts like "personnification of evil" is simply shifting responsibility for investigating the vile things that humanity does on to some supernatural plane.

Cue "PC brigade going mad" posts for three pages :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

Really? There's an 'almost unarguable argument' for jailing two ten year old boys for the rest of their lives? What is it?

Claims of 'exceptional acts of anti-humanity' (to what extent were their actions truly 'exceptional'? No-one knows, precisely because of the nature of the coverage and the trial. Between the murders by Mary Bell and the murder of James Bulger there were twelve other cases of child murders by other children) or that they are 'the personification of evil' just have no merit whatsoever; it's exactly what made their trial such an absolute travesty in the first place - nothing was done to determine how they could have done what they did, why they did it or what the best way to deal with it was both for the case at hand and in terms of learning something for the future.

The frenzied response just determined that they were 'evil' so nothing needed to be learnt. And when you get into that sort of territory it absolves everyone of a responsibility for a proper judicial process and completely shuts down any form of discussion or insight that someone may have.

I think the fact that the extremity of the act, the torture element, and the long-drawn out nature of how Bulger was killed all add to make it exceptional. Media coverage or not, the basic black-and-white facts of the case are such that it is so unusual, so out-of-tune with what is pretty much universally accepted as "correct" human behaviour that the judicial system needs flexibility to address these cases as being exceptional.

For such acts to be be viewed without emotion either by individuals or the media is almost impossible. the impact of the Bulger killing was similar to Dunblane - it created an atmosphere of disbelief, shock and anger across the country. I like to think I am very liberal in my outlook, but to describe the trial as a travesty is ridiculous. The hard, physical evidence was incontrovertible, if I recall correctly, and their guilt was in no doubt whatsoever.

Given the malevolence of their actions, I don't think their trial could have been handled differently. Presumably the alternative is that they dont go through any judicial process because "they cant be given a fair trial"? Surely you're not suggesting this? Given that they are guilty, that they did murder a toddler over a protracted period of torture and huge cruelty, it is hard for me to have a great deal of sympathy I'm afraid. I don't believe in "evil" in any religious sense, but what they did is as close as I can get to thinking of an act that suits the word.

I also think you are mixing the punishment and the nature of how that punishment was handled with the longer term consequences of their action both for them and for society in general. How do you know "nothing was done to determine how they could have done what they did, why they did it or what the best way to deal with it was both for the case at hand and in terms of learning something for the future"? That seems like a stock answer, Liverpool.

[Jay]

Jamie Bulgers killers didn't just push him and he banged his head and died or even just push him on front of a train which would all be horrendous enough, they abducted him, preplanned it all and then tortured him for a long time obviously at no time thinking that they should stop, doing unthinkable, painful things to that wee boy listening to his cries of pain probably screaming for his mum before eventually dumping his body on a train track.

There is young kids making a 'mistake' doing something stupid and not thinking it through and then there is pure evil and I believe in this case the latter stands.

....and for those saying to prove that rehab doesn't work - you prove it does as I think you will find far fewer cases than I would.

[Jonnyboy]

Really? There's an 'almost unarguable argument' for jailing two ten year old boys for the rest of their lives? What is it?

Claims of 'exceptional acts of anti-humanity' (to what extent were their actions truly 'exceptional'? No-one knows, precisely because of the nature of the coverage and the trial. Between the murders by Mary Bell and the murder of James Bulger there were twelve other cases of child murders by other children) or that they are 'the personification of evil' just have no merit whatsoever; it's exactly what made their trial such an absolute travesty in the first place - nothing was done to determine how they could have done what they did, why they did it or what the best way to deal with it was both for the case at hand and in terms of learning something for the future.

The frenzied response just determined that they were 'evil' so nothing needed to be learnt. And when you get into that sort of territory it absolves everyone of a responsibility for a proper judicial process and completely shuts down any form of discussion or insight that someone may have.

I agree with a few of the points you make LH but can I ask what you mean when you say no-one knows whether their acts were truly exceptional? IIRC the prosecution was able to demonstrate that they had failed earlier in the day to 'steal' another child but succeeded with Jamie Bulger. They were further able to demonstrate that the child was beaten and then left on the railway tracks in the hope that a train would hit him and perhaps lead the police to deem his death a tragic accident. To me these things are truly exceptional in that they were carried out by two ten year old children.

I note you say other murders of children, by children occurred but did not get the same public reaction. I confess I have no idea what the circumstances were in each of those other cases or indeed what the outcome of any trial of the accused turned out to be but the fact that they were perhaps not subject to the kind of media frenzy the Jamie Bulger murderers had to face is surely really neither here nor there? I don't mean that to sound flippant I just wanted to isolate the media coverage from the crime so to speak. Had Venables and Thomson been tried and convicted without the media frenzy their guilt would be the same.

As to their trial being a travesty I agree if your point is as stated - nothing was really learned from it in terms of how and why they could do what they did. I've heard it said they came from troubled homes and had a difficult upbringing but that is no defence - lots of kids grow up that way but don't carry out the kind of deeds these boys did.

[JimBHibees]

Its still hard to believe that the Bulger killers were only ten years old at the time. I coach a kids football team at that age, and it beggars belief that anyone that young could do what they did. But, of course, they did do it.

I'm all for rehabilitation, and release when debt has been paid, but for the truly exceptional acts of anti-humanity such as the Bulger killers and Sutcliffe, I think that there is an almost unarguable argument in favour of once they are in, they are in.

As a left-leaning liberal minded individual (although one would hope not a wishy washy surrender monkey), I would find it very, very hard to be comfortable with Venables, Sutcliffe or Thompson moving in next door. if I wouldnt want it, how could I justify it to someone else without being accused of nimbyism?

Completely agree. This wasnt some short lived attack this was the planned and prolonged abuse and murder of a 2 year old defenceless child who they had kidnapped. The two who carried out this should IMO never be out and about until their is incontrovertible proof that they couldnt do it again. The notion that 9 years on they are now not a threat to others is IMO complete nonsense.

Your point about not wanting to live next door to them is absolutely the issue also as someone will have to, given they wont know it is them.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I think the fact that the extremity of the act, the torture element, and the long-drawn out nature of how Bulger was killed all add to make it exceptional. Media coverage or not, the basic black-and-white facts of the case are such that it is so unusual, so out-of-tune with what is pretty much universally accepted as "correct" human behaviour that the judicial system needs flexibility to address these cases as being exceptional.

Firstly, I wasn't questioning that their actions were exceptional in relation to 'normal/correct human behaviour' – of course it was – but whether their actions were exceptional in relation to previous cases of children murdering children. That's the important question, I think.

I don't think there's much doubt that the media coverage was, to one degree or another, prejudicial to the trial. That's fairly clear from the fact that the accusations of a sexual element to the attack are still routinely articulated today despite there being very little evidence that such abuse took place. As I understand it, a couple of jurors on the trial have spoken of regret in passing the murder charge and the influence that the media coverage and the public frenzy had upon them.

For such acts to be be viewed without emotion either by individuals or the media is almost impossible. the impact of the Bulger killing was similar to Dunblane - it created an atmosphere of disbelief, shock and anger across the country. I like to think I am very liberal in my outlook, but to describe the trial as a travesty is ridiculous. The hard, physical evidence was incontrovertible, if I recall correctly, and their guilt was in no doubt whatsoever.

It depends what you mean by 'guilt'. There wasn't any serious questioning of whether they actually did it – that was and is incontrovertible – but that's not necessarily the same as 'guilt'.

Of course there was an emotive reaction to the case, the obvious response would be to minimise this generally and especially the impact it would have on the trial - no attempt was made to do this. A number of countries don't allow media reporting of crimes involving children - I think the trial of Thompson and Venables bears out the expediency of that.


Given the malevolence of their actions, I don't think their trial could have been handled differently. Presumably the alternative is that they dont go through any judicial process because "they cant be given a fair trial"? Surely you're not suggesting this? Given that they are guilty, that they did murder a toddler over a protracted period of torture and huge cruelty, it is hard for me to have a great deal of sympathy I'm afraid. I don't believe in "evil" in any religious sense, but what they did is as close as I can get to thinking of an act that suits the word.

No, the alternative is that you don't try children as adults in a public court; which is not the same as them not being put through the judicial system. So no, I'm not suggesting that.

The European Commission on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights both concluded that a fair trial was not received.


I also think you are mixing the punishment and the nature of how that punishment was handled with the longer term consequences of their action both for them and for society in general. How do you know "nothing was done to determine how they could have done what they did, why they did it or what the best way to deal with it was both for the case at hand and in terms of learning something for the future"? That seems like a stock answer, Liverpool.

In what way is that a stock answer and in what way am I mixing things up?

Such things could not (and were not) have been determined precisely because of the nature of the trial. It wasn't about that, it was about the CPS obtaining a conviction.

One of the few positives to come out of it is the reforms in trying children after the criticism of the case by the ECHR.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I agree with a few of the points you make LH but can I ask what you mean when you say no-one knows whether their acts were truly exceptional? IIRC the prosecution was able to demonstrate that they had failed earlier in the day to 'steal' another child but succeeded with Jamie Bulger. They were further able to demonstrate that the child was beaten and then left on the railway tracks in the hope that a train would hit him and perhaps lead the police to deem his death a tragic accident. To me these things are truly exceptional in that they were carried out by two ten year old children.

I note you say other murders of children, by children occurred but did not get the same public reaction. I confess I have no idea what the circumstances were in each of those other cases or indeed what the outcome of any trial of the accused turned out to be but the fact that they were perhaps not subject to the kind of media frenzy the Jamie Bulger murderers had to face is surely really neither here nor there? I don't mean that to sound flippant I just wanted to isolate the media coverage from the crime so to speak. Had Venables and Thomson been tried and convicted without the media frenzy their guilt would be the same.

As to their trial being a travesty I agree if your point is as stated - nothing was really learned from it in terms of how and why they could do what they did. I've heard it said they came from troubled homes and had a difficult upbringing but that is no defence - lots of kids grow up that way but don't carry out the kind of deeds these boys did.

'Exceptional' comment (hopefully) clarified above.

My point about murders commited by children wasn't to do with it impacting on the trial of Thompson and Venables in any legalistic sense but about the enormous danger of using terms such as 'evil' or 'exceptional' in relation to such cases. It shuts everything down.

On your final point, absolutely - and the point should have been to attempt to determine why these boys didn't grow up without carrying out such deeds.

[Twa Cairpets]

Firstly, I wasn't questioning that their actions were exceptional in relation to 'normal/correct human behaviour' – of course it was – but whether their actions were exceptional in relation to previous cases of children murdering children. That's the important question, I think.

Yes, I think they were, which is one of the reasons why there was the level of coverage there was. it doesnt make any death more or less tragic, but the circumstances do undoubtedly make it exceptional


I don't think there's much doubt that the media coverage was, to one degree or another, prejudicial to the trial. That's fairly clear from the fact that the accusations of a sexual element to the attack are still routinely articulated today despite there being very little evidence that such abuse took place. As I understand it, a couple of jurors on the trial have spoken of regret in passing the murder charge and the influence that the media coverage and the public frenzy had upon them. I've never heard any mention of sexual abuse in this case, and I personally don't recall it being mentioned or reported at the time. You can't legislate for stupidity of people recalling things wrongly or mixing stuff up. On you point of jurors - i don't know, you may be right, but when the evidence is there to support the conviction, its there. They may have been sorry about the circumstances of having to convict ten year olds of such an appalling crime, but that is a different argument entirely.


[QUOTE=LiverpoolHibs;2375367] It depends what you mean by 'guilt'. There wasn't any serious questioning of whether they actually did it – that was and is incontrovertible – but that's not necessarily the same as 'guilt'.

Oh come on. You're either being deliberately provocative or bandying smantics to defend a point. They did it. They were guilty. Not their parents, not society, not the social work department. Them. Another reason why this case is exceptional. There may be contributing factors to them acting in a sociopathic manner, but as Jonnyboy says, very few kids with similar or worse circumstances go on to murder.




Of course there was an emotive reaction to the case, the obvious response would be to minimise this generally and especially the impact it would have on the trial - no attempt was made to do this. A number of countries don't allow media reporting of crimes involving children - I think the trial of Thompson and Venables bears out the expediency of that.
Impractical then, even more so now with the internet. Which countries by the way?



No, the alternative is that you don't try children as adults in a public court; which is not the same as them not being put through the judicial system. So no, I'm not suggesting that.

So how do you try them? Childrens panel?


The European Commission on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights both concluded that a fair trial was not received. I dont know the ruling and I haven't read the background, but the fact still remains that the acts described to the court as prosecution evidence were correct, and that they did kill Bulger. You cannot get away from this - there's no miscarriage of justice here.


In what way is that a stock answer and in what way am I mixing things up?

Such things could not (and were not) have been determined precisely because of the nature of the trial. It wasn't about that, it was about the CPS obtaining a conviction.

One of the few positives to come out of it is the reforms in trying children after the criticism of the case by the ECHR.

It was a stock answer because you make sweeping statements about what didnt happen (which you've then contradicted above, by the way: "One of the few positives..."). A trial, at its simplest, is surely set up to determine the facts of the case. It is not set up to determine where society let the kids down or how things can be done in future to make it better. These can be mitigating factors in deciding sentencing, but not in determining guilt. So the point is spurious. And of course the CPS were after a conviction. Why would that be a bad thing - thats their job, is it not?

[Phil D. Rolls]

The more we have these debates, the more confused I become! It's very hard to see how you can maintain a humane approach to offenders and balance it with justice for the victims. I envy those who can hold a consistent, clear approach.

As for Mrs Bulger - what happened should never have happened. I'm not over familiar with all the details, but I have to ask - how did the child manage to be out of her sight long enough, for the boys to take him away?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Yes, I think they were, which is one of the reasons why there was the level of coverage there was. it doesnt make any death more or less tragic, but the circumstances do undoubtedly make it exceptional

Do you know any of the details of the twelve murders between the Mary Bell case and the Venables/Thompson case?


I've never heard any mention of sexual abuse in this case, and I personally don't recall it being mentioned or reported at the time. You can't legislate for stupidity of people recalling things wrongly or mixing stuff up. On you point of jurors - i don't know, you may be right, but when the evidence is there to support the conviction, its there. They may have been sorry about the circumstances of having to convict ten year olds of such an appalling crime, but that is a different argument entirely.

Are you kidding? If you have a look back, I'm sure you'll have your memory refreshed.

It's nothing to do with legislating for stupidity/mix-ups, it's about not allowing this have any sort of impact on the trial.


Oh come on. You're either being deliberately provocative or bandying smantics to defend a point. They did it. They were guilty. Not their parents, not society, not the social work department. Them. Another reason why this case is exceptional. There may be contributing factors to them acting in a sociopathic manner, but as Jonnyboy says, very few kids with similar or worse circumstances go on to murder.

I'm doing neither (it's certainly not very nice to be accused of being 'deliberately provocative' on such an emotive case, so yeah - cheers for that). As I've said, they did it - but that is not the same as being guilty. There is such a thing, thankfully, as the Defence of Infancy.


Impractical then, even more so now with the internet. Which countries by the way?

Japan off the top of my head. Scandinavian countries as well I think.

I'll see if I can find a comprehensive list.


So how do you try them? Childrens panel?

Let's not get silly. A juvenile court - this really isn't as weird and radical as you seem to think it is.


I dont know the ruling and I haven't read the background, but the fact still remains that the acts described to the court as prosecution evidence were correct, and that they did kill Bulger. You cannot get away from this - there's no miscarriage of justice here. It was a stock answer because you make sweeping statements about what didnt happen (which you've then contradicted above, by the way: "One of the few positives..."). A trial, at its simplest, is surely set up to determine the facts of the case. It is not set up to determine where society let the kids down or how things can be done in future to make it better. These can be mitigating factors in deciding sentencing, but not in determining guilt. So the point is spurious. And of course the CPS were after a conviction. Why would that be a bad thing - thats their job, is it not?

Eh? How is that a contradiction? And what innacurate sweeping statements have I made? You can't just keep asserting this sort of thing.

Of course the CPS' job is to obtain a conviction, but do you genuinely see nothing wrong with trying children in a public, adult court, in the full glare of a irresponsible press and a public baying for blood?

[J-C]

The more we have these debates, the more confused I become! It's very hard to see how you can maintain a humane approach to offenders and balance it with justice for the victims. I envy those who can hold a consistent, clear approach.

As for Mrs Bulger - what happened should never have happened. I'm not over familiar with all the details, but I have to ask - how did the child manage to be out of her sight long enough, for the boys to take him away?


http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html (http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html)

[Phil D. Rolls]

http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html (http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html)

Hardly unreasonable to leave the kid that long.

[J-C]

Hardly unreasonable to leave the kid that long.


The two boys had tried earlier to snatch another toddler, and it pnly takes that few seconds out of sight for it to happen,if they didn't get the Bulger boy, I'm sure they'd have snatched another wee one. They seemed to hAve made up their minds what they wanted and what they were going to do when they got a youngster, this is totally premeditated and shows signs of knowing exactly what they were doing, this is the reason why they should never be allowed out, whether 10 or 90, when someone commits these sort of acts they cross that line.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Okay, I'm bored at work today, so I'm going to play Devil's Advocate.

Does no-one believe in the concepts of rehabilitation or redemption?

it's a bit like reading the front page of a red top at times.

BEAST

EVIL

MONSTER

ROT IN HELL

etc...


the fact is, nothing they ever do will make up for what they did.

they can either - cost the tax payer money and take up precious space in prisons

or they can contribute something positive to society (which apparently they seemed capable of on release)

when they were released, it was said that they were not a danger to society - one can only speculate, but this probably means they understand what they did and it will haunt them for the rest of their lives - not that that is 'punishment enough', i just believe there's a point at which punishment becomes pointless and more motivated by tabloid-esque spite and anger than objective, practical decision making.

:dunno:

[Twa Cairpets]

it's a bit like reading the front page of a red top at times.

BEAST

EVIL

MONSTER

ROT IN HELL

etc...


the fact is, nothing they ever do will make up for what they did.

they can either - cost the tax payer money and take up precious space in prisons

or they can contribute something positive to society (which apparently they seemed capable of on release)

when they were released, it was said that they were not a danger to society - one can only speculate, but this probably means they understand what they did and it will haunt them for the rest of their lives - not that that is 'punishment enough', I just believe there's a point at which punishment becomes pointless and more motivated by tabloid-esque spite and anger than objective, practical decision making.

:dunno:

Ignoring the bold bits at the top, you may well be right - maybe they aren't a danger to society, maybe they can do a job and pay taxes, but frankly, I don't really care. The economic argument is moot (to me anyway). I just don't care if I have to pay an extra 1p a year to keep them in jail.

When have they been punished enough? Its a concept that doesn't sit easy with me, but I think that there are crimes so heinous and despicable that life should mean life.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Ignoring the bold bits at the top, you may well be right - maybe they aren't a danger to society, maybe they can do a job and pay taxes, but frankly, I don't really care. The economic argument is moot (to me anyway). I just don't care if I have to pay an extra 1p a year to keep them in jail.

When have they been punished enough? Its a concept that doesn't sit easy with me, but I think that there are crimes so heinous and despicable that life should mean life.

Even for a 10 year old?

[--------]

Really? There's an 'almost unarguable argument' for jailing two ten year old boys for the rest of their lives? What is it?

Claims of 'exceptional acts of anti-humanity' (to what extent were their actions truly 'exceptional'? No-one knows, precisely because of the nature of the coverage and the trial. Between the murders by Mary Bell and the murder of James Bulger there were twelve other cases of child murders by other children) or that they are 'the personification of evil' just have no merit whatsoever; it's exactly what made their trial such an absolute travesty in the first place - nothing was done to determine how they could have done what they did, why they did it or what the best way to deal with it was both for the case at hand and in terms of learning something for the future.

The frenzied response just determined that they were 'evil' so nothing needed to be learnt. And when you get into that sort of territory it absolves everyone of a responsibility for a proper judicial process and completely shuts down any form of discussion or insight that someone may have.


:top marks

[--------]

I'd just like to point out to all the knee-jerkers on this thread that a breach of conditions can be something relatively minor.

The decision to be made is presumably whether the breach justifies bringing him back to serve more jail time (he'd become eligible for parole at some stage) or whether some alterations need to be made to his conditions, or there could be no case to answer.

The argument over whether he should have been let out in the first place is a completely different matter.


:top marks

[Twa Cairpets]

Even for a 10 year old?

Thats the bit that sits uneasy with me. I think my thought process goes along the lines of: "They knew they precisely what they were doing. It was premeditated and determinedly cruel. If they were 11 would I have reservation?12? 13? 14? 15? 15-and-a-half?" I think it is the premeditation and apparently clear understanding of what they were doing that makes it so exceptional. It doesnt make it easier though.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Thats the bit that sits uneasy with me. I think my thought process goes along the lines of: "They knew they precisely what they were doing. It was premeditated and determinedly cruel. If they were 11 would I have reservation?12? 13? 14? 15? 15-and-a-half?" I think it is the premeditation and apparently clear understanding of what they were doing that makes it so exceptional. It doesnt make it easier though.

I agree, it's all about having the capacity to know what they were doing. Clearly they had thought through the act of murder. Did they also think through what murder actually meant though.

I'm not sure either. I think the wisest decision was to treat them as kids, but to supervise them closely on release. I can't see any answer that would make everyone happy. However, treating them as adults would maybe be a step backwards.

[Twa Cairpets]

I agree, it's all about having the capacity to know what they were doing. Clearly they had thought through the act of murder. Did they also think through what murder actually meant though.

I'm not sure either. I think the wisest decision was to treat them as kids, but to supervise them closely on release. I can't see any answer that would make everyone happy. However, treating them as adults would maybe be a step backwards.

I think another issue is that people still think of them as kids. They're not, they're in their late twenties now. You cant give them their childhood back - that has been forfeited, so any punishment at this time is meted out to an adult, not a child. Difficult one.

[RyeSloan]

Must admit I'm leaning towards LH on this one although I suspect there is no 'right answer' that all would agree on or even one I would ever 100% support!

What I would say is that treating 10 year olds as adults and giving them a public trial in an adult court is simply wrong no matter what their crime and I am glad that this has been highlighted by the human rights courts.

I would also say that the thought of a humane society holding a person for the rest of his natural life for a crime he committed as a 10 year old also sits very uneasily with me. Of course I see the need for punishment and I'm sure if it was my child I would say different but from a removed perspective I really am unsure of how anyone could justify jailing someone for say 80 years for a crime they commted when 10 yo.

Jamie Bulger died in horrific circumstances and the boys that perpretrated it were clearly disturbed. Why and how they got to that stage I have not seen anything on so can't comment but punishing the cuplrits is surely only part of the answer....learning lessons to try and prevent a repeat should be given equal weighting.

[Westie1875]

Jamie Bulgers killers didn't just push him and he banged his head and died or even just push him on front of a train which would all be horrendous enough, they abducted him, preplanned it all and then tortured him for a long time obviously at no time thinking that they should stop, doing unthinkable, painful things to that wee boy listening to his cries of pain probably screaming for his mum before eventually dumping his body on a train track.

There is young kids making a 'mistake' doing something stupid and not thinking it through and then there is pure evil and I believe in this case the latter stands.

....and for those saying to prove that rehab doesn't work - you prove it does as I think you will find far fewer cases than I would.

Agree with everything you say, I was only 11 when this happened so didn't know a lot of the detail until I watched the documentary mentioned earlier in the thread. It is absolutely sickening what these boys did.

The fact that they were released after only 8 years is what fuels many peoples anger given the extent of the crime.

I agree with James Bulger's mum, Venables is back where he belongs, should've been kept locked up a lot longer than 8 years.

[AgentDaleCooper]

Agree with everything you say, I was only 11 when this happened so didn't know a lot of the detail until I watched the documentary mentioned earlier in the thread. It is absolutely sickening what these boys did.

The fact that they were released after only 8 years is what fuels many peoples anger given the extent of the crime.

I agree with James Bulger's mum, Venables is back where he belongs, should've been kept locked up a lot longer than 8 years.

to achieve what?

[richard_pitts]

Jamie Bulgers killers didn't just push him and he banged his head and died or even just push him on front of a train which would all be horrendous enough, they abducted him, preplanned it all and then tortured him for a long time obviously at no time thinking that they should stop, doing unthinkable, painful things to that wee boy listening to his cries of pain probably screaming for his mum before eventually dumping his body on a train track.

There is young kids making a 'mistake' doing something stupid and not thinking it through and then there is pure evil and I believe in this case the latter stands.

....and for those saying to prove that rehab doesn't work - you prove it does as I think you will find far fewer cases than I would.

I think you have to be a parent to understand just how horrific that is - my little boy is currently three (still uses one of these :dummytit:) and reading this just made me feel physically sick. I think there has only been
one other instance of a child under 12 killing other children in Britain since the 1970s which should give you an idea of how horrific this was. Toddlers aged two or thereabouts tend to be affectionate, gentle and very innocent. :boo hoo:

Before trying them in an adult court, the prosecution would have had to establish beyond reasonable doubt that they knew what they were doing and understood the implications. The psychiatrist was in no doubt, describing one of them as "psychotic".

I'm not a hang em, flog em shoot em type but there is no way they should have only served nine years if only in the name of protecting the public - to do that they must have been seriously disturbed. They knew what they were doing and did so in a cold, premeditated fashion.

[CropleyWasGod]

I think you have to be a parent to understand just how horrific that is - my little boy is currently three (still uses one of these :dummytit:) and reading this just made me feel physically sick. I think there has only been
one other instance of a child under 12 killing other children in Britain since the 1970s which should give you an idea of how horrific this was. Toddlers aged two or thereabouts tend to be affectionate, gentle and very innocent. :boo hoo:

Before trying them in an adult court, the prosecution would have had to establish beyond reasonable doubt that they knew what they were doing and understood the implications. The psychiatrist was in no doubt, describing one of them as "psychotic".

I'm not a hang em, flog em shoot em type but there is no way they should have only served nine years if only in the name of protecting the public - to do that they must have been seriously disturbed. They knew what they were doing and did so in a cold, premeditated fashion.

... whereas my son is the same age as those that did it. At the time, as a 10 year old, he obviously couldn't understand it (bad boys ring doorbells and run away, they don't murder wee boys.) His Mum and I, though just felt bereft at the loss of life.... not just Jamie's, but the senseless waste of two other lives that had barely begun.

It is a mark of a civilised society how we deal with our misfits. Misfits these guys certainly are. Punishment was appropriate, for sure, but supervision, understanding and, yes, a second chance even more so.

[richard_pitts]

I agree, however, in this instance I do not believe they can be properly rehabilitated in the length of time served given the nature of what they did - especially given their age at the time :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

I agree, however, in this instance I do not believe they can be properly rehabilitated in the length of time served given the nature of what they did - especially given their age at the time :agree:

I think it's the length of time that's getting most people.... whether as a punishment or, as you say, a rehabilitation. I can't comment on that, as I am no expert in these matter.

I would prefer to leave such things to the professionals.... cue a 3 pager on social workers :devil:

[Westie1875]

to achieve what?

Punishment & rehab, I'm not saying they should have been locked up forever, I just don't think 8 years is long enough for murder, especially one as horrific as this one.

[Lucius Apuleius]

I guess everything comes down to your viewpoint on whether prison is a punishment ar a rehabilitation centre.

[Steve-O]

....and for those saying to prove that rehab doesn't work - you prove it does as I think you will find far fewer cases than I would.

This is because you won't find cases where it DOES work, because there is nothing to report is there? Offender gets released, abides by conditions, doesn't re-offend, end of story.

I think there are more people who are rehabilitated than not, or else serious questions would be asked of the Parole Board, but as far as I can see, such questions are not being asked and it would appear they are doing their job?



I agree, however, in this instance I do not believe they can be properly rehabilitated in the length of time served given the nature of what they did - especially given their age at the time :agree:

I disagree, because of the age. A LOT changes between the ages of 11-20, probably more than at any time in life. Therefore, I do think that is ample time for them to be rehabilitated.

The fact is, they were only allowed out because the Parole Board decided they did not pose an undue risk to the public. This decision was not taken by tossing a coin, but it would have been after reading many reports from many experts on the matter, and it would also not have been taken lightly, as some people seem to infer in these cases.

It would also seem that they have both proven they really are not a risk to the public as nothing has happened since they were released, and this current situation does not prove otherwise until the reason for the recall to prison is revealed.

[J-C]

Some have mentioned punishment/rehabilitation, which are to seperate things.

Rehab is for the the serial thief or burglar etc and allows them the chance to start their over again without crime.

Punishment is for the more serious offender when a life is taken and guilt is proven beyond doubt, the punishment fits the crime so to speak.

Age should have nothing to do with the length of time served behind bars, I know plenty of 10 yr olds who know the difference between evil/good, right/wrong. These 2 lads knew exactly what they were doing, attempted to kidnap another child earlier and thereafter tortured a poor wee sole and left him for dead. A life sentence should mean just that, life at least 25-30 yrs, not 8-9.

[Steve-O]

Some have mentioned punishment/rehabilitation, which are to seperate things.

Rehab is for the the serial thief or burglar etc and allows them the chance to start their over again without crime.

Punishment is for the more serious offender when a life is taken and guilt is proven beyond doubt, the punishment fits the crime so to speak.

Age should have nothing to do with the length of time served behind bars, I know plenty of 10 yr olds who know the difference between evil/good, right/wrong. These 2 lads knew exactly what they were doing, attempted to kidnap another child earlier and thereafter tortured a poor wee sole and left him for dead. A life sentence should mean just that, life at least 25-30 yrs, not 8-9.

It does mean that though...:brickwall

[J-C]

It does mean that though...:brickwall

It didn't in their case though did it and that's where the problem lies.:confused:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1402527.stm

[AgentDaleCooper]

Some have mentioned punishment/rehabilitation, which are to seperate things.

Rehab is for the the serial thief or burglar etc and allows them the chance to start their over again without crime.

Punishment is for the more serious offender when a life is taken and guilt is proven beyond doubt, the punishment fits the crime so to speak.

Age should have nothing to do with the length of time served behind bars, I know plenty of 10 yr olds who know the difference between evil/good, right/wrong. These 2 lads knew exactly what they were doing, attempted to kidnap another child earlier and thereafter tortured a poor wee sole and left him for dead. A life sentence should mean just that, life at least 25-30 yrs, not 8-9.
it should, because children are vulnerable, plus there is a much greater chance of rehabilitation. punishment for the sake of punishment is pointless.

---------- Post added at 10:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 AM ----------


I agree, however, in this instance I do not believe they can be properly rehabilitated in the length of time served given the nature of what they did - especially given their age at the time :agree:
is this a qualified opinion?

[Jay]

This is because you won't find cases where it DOES work, because there is nothing to report is there? Offender gets released, abides by conditions, doesn't re-offend, end of story.

I think there are more people who are rehabilitated than not, or else serious questions would be asked of the Parole Board, but as far as I can see, such questions are not being asked and it would appear they are doing their job?


But this case is different steve-O these boys planned to steal a toddler and after a failed attempt they still were determined to do it, then set about horrendous prolonged torture of a wee boy until he eventually died then they carried his little body onto a train tack. There is something far far wrong with them and as a society we need to protect our children. In my opinion we shouldn't take the risk of releasing them.

There cant be many documented cases of this type of crime at all but I would put money on the known offenders being back in prison after release at some point. One do gooder saying these boys/men have rights sets the ball rolling but what about that wee boy they murdered so violently?? Did he not have the right to life? Does he not now have the right to some justice? Is it fair on him that his torturers life a free life?

[IWasThere2016]

Noose him ..

[Betty Boop]

Speculation on the reason why John Venables has been recalled to prison is rife. Breaching the terms of parole conditions, can be for something as simple as sleeping in for probation appointments.

[--------]

Thats the bit that sits uneasy with me. I think my thought process goes along the lines of: "They knew they precisely what they were doing. It was premeditated and determinedly cruel. If they were 11 would I have reservation?12? 13? 14? 15? 15-and-a-half?" I think it is the premeditation and apparently clear understanding of what they were doing that makes it so exceptional. It doesnt make it easier though.



I'm not sure they DID know precisely what they were doing, TC.

How far does any child that age understand fully the principle of cause and consequence? And given the boys' background, how realistic is it to expect THESE particular boys to have that understanding? Or the moral compass by which to make decisions or form plans?

The same things have been said in the media about Venables as were said about Mary Bell. In her case she was demonised as being 'evil' and 'psychopathic' while the other girl who was certainly art and part in the killings was seen as somehow less culpable.

This was partly down to the different family backgrounds of the two girls, and partly down to the fact that one girl had a sympathetic and effective counsel, while Mary had not.

In fact, NOTHING was said in court regarding the appalling upbringing MB had undergone - read Gitta Sereny's book about the case (possibly you already have) and weep.

A lot comes down to public perceptions or the perpetrators through the distorting lens of the media. A lot comes down to our own imperect understanding of what goes on in the minds of disturbed children. A lot comes down to our own unwillingness to acknowledge that we, too, are capable of some pretty awful things in certain circumstances.

BTW, Mary Bell was released and HAS managed to make a life for herself. She's had problems, but she hasn't re-offended.

[Jonnyboy]

Speculation on the reason why John Venables has been recalled to prison is rife. Breaching the terms of parole conditions, can be for something as simple as sleeping in for probation appointments.

Speculation ended

http://news.aol.co.uk/bulger-killer-had-fight-at-work/article/20100303221028253311457

[hibsbollah]

Speculation ended

http://news.aol.co.uk/bulger-killer-had-fight-at-work/article/20100303221028253311457 (http://news.aol.co.uk/bulger-killer-had-fight-at-work/article/20100303221028253311457)

If The Mirror are reporting that level of detail, then his identity wont be secret for much longer. Theres not that many 27 year old scousers who have been recently sacked after a fight at work (cue scouser jokes:greengrin) and have now recently gone back to prison.


...and a few 27 year old scousers sitting in jail, with nothing to do with the Bulger case, scared to death in case they're victims of mistaken identity...

[J-C]

Speculation ended

http://news.aol.co.uk/bulger-killer-had-fight-at-work/article/20100303221028253311457 (http://news.aol.co.uk/bulger-killer-had-fight-at-work/article/20100303221028253311457)


What I'd heard John was that it was a serious assault, not just a wee fight at work.

[IndieHibby]

If The Mirror are reporting that level of detail, then his identity wont be secret for much longer. Theres not that many 27 year old scousers who have been recently sacked after a fight at work (cue scouser jokes:greengrin) and have now recently gone back to prison.

Dude from Birmingham Uni on the Today programme this morning reckoned keeping his (or anyone like him) identity secret was nigh-on impossible, from the outset.

If he lived next to me I would certainly want to know. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I'm not prepared to take chances with people like him.

Someone will work it out and there are plenty who will be willing to give him their version of justice (not that I necessarily agree).

It would seem his return to prison is for drugs and being unable to control his temper.

With his history he is a danger to the public. If he lived next to me I would certainly want to know. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I'm not prepared to take chances with people like him.

[Dunbar Hibee]

If it was up to me the 2 wee *******s would have got the death penalty in the first place.

[Andy74]

Is it just me?

10 yrs old they were?

People here making all sorts of assumptions about how evil these guys were at 10 years old. I don't know or can't comprehend what would make someone at 10 yrs old do that sort of thing but I'm certainly not the same person I was at 10 yrs old!

We aren't talking some one who murdered when they were 20 and are now 20 yrs later out and about, I'd be concerned with that, but people who did this as kids? I just don't think I can make a judgement on them now based on that.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think another issue is that people still think of them as kids. They're not, they're in their late twenties now. You cant give them their childhood back - that has been forfeited, so any punishment at this time is meted out to an adult, not a child. Difficult one.

Yes, it's a complex issue - I just wish we could bring Bulger back.


I agree, however, in this instance I do not believe they can be properly rehabilitated in the length of time served given the nature of what they did - especially given their age at the time :agree:

The problem is, how do you rehabilitate a life that hasn't been fully formed. I think child years are a bit like dog years. 8 years in these guys lives is a lot longer than 8 years in an adult life.


It didn't in their case though did it and that's where the problem lies.:confused:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1402527.stm
10 years after release, the guy is subject to stiffer restrictions on his liberty than most though.

If it was up to me the 2 wee *******s would have got the death penalty in the first place.

Would you be happy to live in a country that hangs 10 year olds? And where would you find someone mad enough to do it?

[CropleyWasGod]

If it was up to me the 2 wee *******s would have got the death penalty in the first place.

I am so glad it isn't....

[Hibby D]

If it was up to me the 2 wee *******s would have got the death penalty in the first place.

From the nearest tree no doubt :bitchy:

[IWasThere2016]

Is it just me?

10 yrs old they were?

People here making all sorts of assumptions about how evil these guys were at 10 years old. I don't know or can't comprehend what would make someone at 10 yrs old do that sort of thing but I'm certainly not the same person I was at 10 yrs old!

We aren't talking some one who murdered when they were 20 and are now 20 yrs later out and about, I'd be concerned with that, but people who did this as kids? I just don't think I can make a judgement on them now based on that.

Andy - their acts were evil .. pure evil. The acts they committed are beyond the levels of decency, and very untypical of balanced 10 year olds. If you knew the victim or were related to the victim, do you think you'd feel differently?

[EuanH78]

Is it just me?

10 yrs old they were?

People here making all sorts of assumptions about how evil these guys were at 10 years old. I don't know or can't comprehend what would make someone at 10 yrs old do that sort of thing but I'm certainly not the same person I was at 10 yrs old!

We aren't talking some one who murdered when they were 20 and are now 20 yrs later out and about, I'd be concerned with that, but people who did this as kids? I just don't think I can make a judgement on them now based on that.

It's not just you.

I don't think that I would be comfortable living in a society that could condemn a ten year old to prison for a lifetime.

I'm not sure that anyone can ever be beyond redemption. I am certain however, that ten year olds deserve a second chance.

[Betty Boop]

It is interesting to compare the way that Norway deals with children killing children, to here in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/highlights/001109_child.shtml

[lapsedhibee]

It is interesting to compare the way that Norway deals with children killing children, to here in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/highlights/001109_child.shtml

It is interesting. Are there no red-tops in Norway to [reflect/stimulate] (delete according to taste) public outrage? :dunno:

[J-C]

It is interesting to compare the way that Norway deals with children killing children, to here in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/highlights/001109_child.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/highlights/001109_child.shtml)


Betty, the difference here is the Norwegian boys didn't kidnap this wee girl and thereafter torture her to within an inch of her life while getting their kicks out of it.

[Darth Hibbie]

It is interesting to compare the way that Norway deals with children killing children, to here in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/highlights/001109_child.shtml

In Scotland no child under the age of 8 can be charged with a crime as they are under the age of criminal responsibility. In the same circumstances the same would have happened here.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm not sure they DID know precisely what they were doing, TC.

How far does any child that age understand fully the principle of cause and consequence? And given the boys' background, how realistic is it to expect THESE particular boys to have that understanding? Or the moral compass by which to make decisions or form plans?

The same things have been said in the media about Venables as were said about Mary Bell. In her case she was demonised as being 'evil' and 'psychopathic' while the other girl who was certainly art and part in the killings was seen as somehow less culpable.

This was partly down to the different family backgrounds of the two girls, and partly down to the fact that one girl had a sympathetic and effective counsel, while Mary had not.

In fact, NOTHING was said in court regarding the appalling upbringing MB had undergone - read Gitta Sereny's book about the case (possibly you already have) and weep.

A lot comes down to public perceptions or the perpetrators through the distorting lens of the media. A lot comes down to our own imperect understanding of what goes on in the minds of disturbed children. A lot comes down to our own unwillingness to acknowledge that we, too, are capable of some pretty awful things in certain circumstances.

BTW, Mary Bell was released and HAS managed to make a life for herself. She's had problems, but she hasn't re-offended.

A lot of this makes sense Doddie, and as you will have surmised I'm not entirely comfortable about how I think about this case.

In terms of moral compass, I think by any standard the avoidance of torture and murder is something inately understood to be wrong - it is the extreme level of "wrongness" in this case that sets it apart. For example, there was the guy yesterday who admitted a road rage killing whilst off his head on drinks and drugs - every bit as awful and tragic by any rational analysis, but somehow different in the level of emotional impact of the Bulger murder.

The media report what they report - I avoid reading the "news" coverage of tabloids, but usually at the root of the best journalism are the facts. As long as one has the critical faculties to separate opinion from fact then it is possible to filter out the excesses of poor journalism.

i dont know enough about the Mary Bell case to comment.

[RyeSloan]

Andy - their acts were evil .. pure evil. The acts they committed are beyond the levels of decency, and very untypical of balanced 10 year olds. If you knew the victim or were related to the victim, do you think you'd feel differently?

Will Self made an excellent point regarding this on Question Time last night.

I will not even attempt to replicate his eloquent delivery but the gist of it was that it is very very likely that these boys were in fact quite removed from the 'pure evil' you talk about and that approaching this case with the assumption that somehow these boys were distilled evil is entirely incorrect.

Thought the points made on QT from all of the panel (Verderman excepted) were very good and the responses to some of the knee jerk audience proclemations (see various posts above!) excellent.

[chorley_fm]

I'd just like to point out to all the knee-jerkers on this thread that a breach of conditions can be something relatively minor.

The decision to be made is presumably whether the breach justifies bringing him back to serve more jail time (he'd become eligible for parole at some stage) or whether some alterations need to be made to his conditions, or there could be no case to answer.



The argument over whether he should have been let out in the first place is a completely different matter.

Exactly, it could have been something as minor as missing a phone call to his probation officer

[Darth Hibbie]

In Scotland no child under the age of 8 can be charged with a crime as they are under the age of criminal responsibility. In the same circumstances the same would have happened here.

The position in England. So the Norway comparison is not a fair one as its not like for like.


The age of criminal responsibility was raised from eight years old to ten, in 1963.1 But the law continued to presume that children under fourteen did not know the difference between right and wrong (“doli incapax”) unless the prosecution proved otherwise, until 1999.2 So the difference is that, since 1963 a child under ten may not be tried or punished for any criminal behaviour, and until 1999 a child under fourteen could not be convicted unless the court could be satisfied that he knew what he was doing was seriously wrong, not merely naughty or mischievous

[Betty Boop]

Betty, the difference here is the Norwegian boys didn't kidnap this wee girl and thereafter torture her to within an inch of her life while getting their kicks out of it.

They maybe didn't kidnap the wee girl, however stripping, stoning and leaving her to perish in the snow....

[steakbake]

The Bulger case was to my recollection, the first news story which set off the kind of tabloid inspired wave of mob anger and popular outrage that is so common now. We've not looked back since.

[J-C]

They maybe didn't kidnap the wee girl, however stripping, stoning and leaving her to perish in the snow....


The fact that the Bulger killers actually tried to kidnap another toddler earlier that day, shows that they had evil intent, they were arrested the following day after kidnapping another child.

Read this, it's quite repulsive.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger)

[AgentDaleCooper]

The fact that the Bulger killers actually tried to kidnap another toddler earlier that day, shows that they had evil intent, they were arrested the following day after kidnapping another child.

Read this, it's quite repulsive.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger)

it's not a competition...

[steakbake]

clearly, we need a poll...

[magpie1892]

It is a fact that countries with systems of parole have less incidences of re-offending than countries that do not.

I think if you don't get parole your chances of re-offending come down to, er, about zero.

[Pete]

People are describing this as some pre-planned SAS style operation. After reading the link to the details it seemed like anything but that. They dragged him for miles along busy streets and there were numerous chances for adults to end the ordeal.
It appears the more they got away with the bolder they got and they became closer to realising that they might actually get away with doing something really bad. It's just bad luck that the opportunities were granted to either gullible or stupid people....99 times out of 100 they would have been collared.


The tabloids are screaming for the reason for Venables' breach to be made public. What good will that do?
All that will happen is that he will be lynched...and I wonder how the tabloids would react to that?? No doubt they will blam the BNP or something other than their own hysteria machine.


I can't use the word evil when thinking of this case. People like Peter Tobin are evil....unless they can come forward with reasons why they have developed into the beings they are such as traumatic events or abuse.
Age is the only other factor when considering responsibility and I think if someone commits a crime at ten they shouldn't be judged seventeen years later when they are an entirely different entity.
Some of the newspaper articles and reactionary attitudes beggar belief. It's an emotive subject...and the **** papers know that.

[ArabHibee]

They maybe didn't kidnap the wee girl, however stripping, stoning and leaving her to perish in the snow.... But from what I've read this appeared to be something that got out of hand, the 2 of them got scared and ran off, no pre-meditation.


People are describing this as some pre-planned SAS style operation. After reading the link to the details it seemed like anything but that. They dragged him for miles along busy streets and there were numerous chances for adults to end the ordeal.
It appears the more they got away with the bolder they got and they became closer to realising that they might actually get away with doing something really bad. It's just bad luck that the opportunities were granted to either gullible or stupid people....99 times out of 100 they would have been collared.


The tabloids are screaming for the reason for Venables' breach to be made public. What good will that do?
All that will happen is that he will be lynched...and I wonder how the tabloids would react to that?? No doubt they will blam the BNP or something other than their own hysteria machine.


I can't use the word evil when thinking of this case. People like Peter Tobin are evil....unless they can come forward with reasons why they have developed into the beings they are such as traumatic events or abuse.
Age is the only other factor when considering responsibility and I think if someone commits a crime at ten they shouldn't be judged seventeen years later when they are an entirely different entity.
Some of the newspaper articles and reactionary attitudes beggar belief. It's an emotive subject...and the **** papers know that.

My question to the bit in bold is: What article did you read? So it's the adults who saw them with the little boy that are at fault here? They're gullible or stupid? How do you come to that conclusion? You see a little boy crying with 2 older boys and you ask them what's wrong and they say he's fallen and they're taking him home etc. You would automatically think that there's something up and you should intervene? You would think that their story didn't sound plausible? And this was pre-meditated. They tried to snatch another child earlier on in the same day. If they had succeeded, we wouldn't even know the name of Jamie Bulger, it would be some other poor wee unfortunate soul.

[Pete]

My question to the bit in bold is: What article did you read?

I read JC50's link.



So it's the adults who saw them with the little boy that are at fault here? They're gullible or stupid? How do you come to that conclusion? You see a little boy crying with 2 older boys and you ask them what's wrong and they say he's fallen and they're taking him home etc. You would automatically think that there's something up and you should intervene? You would think that their story didn't sound plausible? And this was pre-meditated. They tried to snatch another child earlier on in the same day. If they had succeeded, we wouldn't even know the name of Jamie Bulger, it would be some other poor wee unfortunate soul.

It's about odds. How would you react if you were in the position of any of those adults? would you have done any different?

You can't tell but I'm pretty sure that the wrong decisions were made by an unfortunate amount of people on that day resulting in the murder. All it would have taken was for one to say "Hang on...I'm taking YOU and this kid to the polis because I don't buy what your saying". That's wouldn't be an unusual reaction in any of the circumstances.

[Steve-O]

It didn't in their case though did it and that's where the problem lies.:confused:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1402527.stm

Sorry, but both of them received LIFE sentences. The reason he is back in jail now is precisely because of that life sentence. Both are on conditions until they die, end of story. A sentence does not just mean imprisonment as so many people seem to think.



But this case is different steve-O these boys planned to steal a toddler and after a failed attempt they still were determined to do it, then set about horrendous prolonged torture of a wee boy until he eventually died then they carried his little body onto a train tack. There is something far far wrong with them and as a society we need to protect our children. In my opinion we shouldn't take the risk of releasing them.

There cant be many documented cases of this type of crime at all but I would put money on the known offenders being back in prison after release at some point. One do gooder saying these boys/men have rights sets the ball rolling but what about that wee boy they murdered so violently?? Did he not have the right to life? Does he not now have the right to some justice? Is it fair on him that his torturers life a free life?

They don't live a 'free' life though. They are not in jail, but they must abide by many strict conditions, one of which has been breached and resulted in him being back inside.

Look, it was a terrible thing they did, but I am not buying these 'pure evil' arguments. They were 10 years old, they could not possibly have appreciated the full consequences of their actions. They had a dire upbringing, were poorly educated, and 10 years old.

There WAS something far wrong, but how can you say there still is without knowing any of the facts since their incarceration? Prison is not a nice place (despite what some seem to think) and as has been said, it was thought that by sending them to a fully fledged men's prison, all the work that had been done to rehabilitate them would've been undone in that environment so the decision was taken to release them as it was not thought they posed a risk to the public. This appears to have been the correct decision for 9 whole years, and it's only one of them who has now been up to no good.

[Steve-O]

Andy - their acts were evil .. pure evil. The acts they committed are beyond the levels of decency, and very untypical of balanced 10 year olds. If you knew the victim or were related to the victim, do you think you'd feel differently?

They were NOT balanced 10 years olds though?

And there is no point to your final question, because of course you would feel differently if it happened to you, that's why we have a judicial system in civilised society and victims don't hand out justice themselves!

[Steve-O]

I think if you don't get parole your chances of re-offending come down to, er, about zero.

So everyone who goes to prison should stay there?

Well done on that remarkable contribution to the thread.

It's also possible to offend in prison, incidentally.

[AgentDaleCooper]

They were NOT balanced 10 years olds though?

And there is no point to your final question, because of course you would feel differently if it happened to you, that's why we have a judicial system in civilised society and victims don't hand out justice themselves!

EXACTLY!! :agree:

it's basically saying "if you had a completely unobjective perception of this very delicate situation, how would you want it dealt with?"

[Steve-O]

Just watched the bit about it on Question Time. Vorderman talking pish. "It's not a life sentence!" :blah::blah:

I do wish people understood what a ******ing sentence was all about before they commented on it :grr:

[Steve-O]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2881233/Jon-Venables-faces-a-sex-charge.html

Interesting :hmmm:

It seems this one is not going to go away anytime soon.

[hibiedude]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2881233/Jon-Venables-faces-a-sex-charge.html

Interesting :hmmm:

It seems this one is not going to go away anytime soon.

if proved to be true it will represent a staggering failure in his close supervision by the Justice Ministry's Probation Service and heads should roll in my opinion

These lads should never have been released and its easy for me to say that now but the crime they committed should have carried a 25 year minimum sentence.

[Steve-O]

if proved to be true it will represent a staggering failure in his close supervision by the Justice Ministry's Probation Service and heads should roll in my opinion

These lads should never have been released and its easy for me to say that now but the crime they committed should have carried a 25 year minimum sentence.

I'll assume you mean a non-parole period of 25 years imprisonment, because as has been said so many times, they are both on life sentences.

I'm not sure how it represents a staggering failure to be honest? It is simply not possible to have people under constant supervision 24 hours a day. What could have been done by the Probation Service if Venables has committed a rape, for example?

[ArabHibee]

I read JC50's link.



It's about odds. How would you react if you were in the position of any of those adults? would you have done any different?

You can't tell but I'm pretty sure that the wrong decisions were made by an unfortunate amount of people on that day resulting in the murder. All it would have taken was for one to say "Hang on...I'm taking YOU and this kid to the polis because I don't buy what your saying". That's wouldn't be an unusual reaction in any of the circumstances.


Firstly, JC50's link is to Wikipedia. Personally I would take anything written on Wikipedia with a pinch of salt considering anybody can type whatever they want on it.

You're asking how I would have reacted if I had been one of the adults. You have to put yourself back to the time in question, when there had been no abductions and murders of 2 year old kids by 10 year olds and the world wasn't as cynical as it is now. I think then that their stories would have sounded more plausible. And don't you think these people in question probably beat themselves up every day about this now thinking 'if only I had intervened?' Don't think there is any need to call them stupid or gullible.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Some of the newspaper articles and reactionary attitudes beggar belief. It's an emotive subject...and the **** papers know that.

The papers know who they are writing stories for. People who want quick answers to complex problems.

People who don't have the ability, the time or the desire to look beyond their own feelings. Sometimes they don't even listen to the facts.

Any attempt to reason is met with intolerance, or an accusation that the person has no emotion about the case. Any attempt to make them consider the whole tragedy is met with some biblical argument like "thou shalt not kill".

At the same time, the same people sit back whilst soldiers of their country (Our Boys in their language), kill children overseas. Of course, that's different they will say. For some reason the image of a child lying staring with dead eyes doesn't hurt them the same way.

Somehow, a 10 year old, whom they wouldn't expect to be able to drive a car or even iron his clothes, is much more evil for killing a child than an adult soldier who does it for pay.

It's easy to say "they should be hanged" and such like. Those that say it know it is never going to happen. Just like the braying mobs that wait outside court rooms know they are going to be held back by police.

It's so much harder to look at the grey areas, to experience the total tragedy of the situation. It's harder too, to find answers that will ensure that justice is done, and that the thing doesn't happen again.

People like Venables and Thomson and Tobin are like Tsunamis. They wreak havoc in their wake, and hurt many people in the process - and we have as much control over them as we do over a tidal wave.

Maybe at times we just have to step back and make the most of life, with all its pain and all its pleasure. Accept the good and bad that we have, rather than trying to fix things that can't be repaired.

The worst thing about this case to me is the knowledge that, in a week's time, people will have forgotten all about it, and will be screaming "the sky is falling" because some other Chicken Licken will have diverted their attention.

And as the mob reassembles, there will be someone somewhere screaming "will nobody think of our children". And Denise Bulger will be thinking, "I never stop" - but her tragedy ill be last week's news again. I wonder how she feels watching the same people who were so racked by concern, after they have forgotten.

Meanwhile, the people who really care will remember, even though they wish they could forget. It won't be a case of one tragedy replacing another, it will be one tragedy on top of another.

My overall feeling is that people actually enjoy talking about these murders. How else do you explain the lust for graphic detail of the case? And as I type this a child somewhere dies of disease or starvation, yet the death of this one child in an affluent country merits more angst and sorrow.

I wish people would open their eyes.

[Steve-O]

Firstly, JC50's link is to Wikipedia. Personally I would take anything written on Wikipedia with a pinch of salt considering anybody can type whatever they want on it.

You're asking how I would have reacted if I had been one of the adults. You have to put yourself back to the time in question, when there had been no abductions and murders of 2 year old kids by 10 year olds and the world wasn't as cynical as it is now. I think then that their stories would have sounded more plausible. And don't you think these people in question probably beat themselves up every day about this now thinking 'if only I had intervened?' Don't think there is any need to call them stupid or gullible.

Not strictly true these days. Wikipedia has undergone (and is still undergoing) a huge clean up and all articles must be suitably referenced. You'll find that article is indeed referenced so no need for a pinch of salt IMO. The areas that are not referenced are marked as such, so it's clear what is fact and what may not be true.

[Steve-O]

The fact that the Bulger killers actually tried to kidnap another toddler earlier that day, shows that they had evil intent, they were arrested the following day after kidnapping another child.

Read this, it's quite repulsive.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger)

Completely untrue.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Ironically, I think it is the hysteria generated about potential paedophiles, that stops most adults intervening in any situation that involves children.

Maybe a bit of balance is needed, as at the moment most people I know won't get involved with ticking off kids because they might get called a nonce.

[hibsbollah]

My overall feeling is that people actually enjoy talking about these murders.

:agree:Absolutely. The lust for more and more salacious detail of the acts is as disturbing as the acts themselves. Although I followed the Baby P story on the news, I've chosen to avoid the more salacious details of what physically happened to the baby because a) its upsetting and b) it doesnt actually add anything to understanding the event.

Theres no reason why the media couldnt just self-regulate themselves and report that theres been a murder, where it happened and who it happened to, instead of the usual murder porn we get exposed to.

[Phil D. Rolls]

:agree:Absolutely. The lust for more and more salacious detail of the acts is as disturbing as the acts themselves. Although I followed the Baby P story on the news, I've chosen to avoid the more salacious details of what physically happened to the baby because a) its upsetting and b) it doesnt actually add anything to understanding the event.

Theres no reason why the media couldnt just self-regulate themselves and report that theres been a murder, where it happened and who it happened to, instead of the usual murder porn we get exposed to.

Or, are people so lacking in imagination that they can't fill in the detail themselves.

[Betty Boop]

The papers know who they are writing stories for. People who want quick answers to complex problems.

People who don't have the ability, the time or the desire to look beyond their own feelings. Sometimes they don't even listen to the facts.

Any attempt to reason is met with intolerance, or an accusation that the person has no emotion about the case. Any attempt to make them consider the whole tragedy is met with some biblical argument like "thou shalt not kill".

At the same time, the same people sit back whilst soldiers of their country (Our Boys in their language), kill children overseas. Of course, that's different they will say. For some reason the image of a child lying staring with dead eyes doesn't hurt them the same way.

Somehow, a 10 year old, whom they wouldn't expect to be able to drive a car or even iron his clothes, is much more evil for killing a child than an adult soldier who does it for pay.

It's easy to say "they should be hanged" and such like. Those that say it know it is never going to happen. Just like the braying mobs that wait outside court rooms know they are going to be held back by police.

It's so much harder to look at the grey areas, to experience the total tragedy of the situation. It's harder too, to find answers that will ensure that justice is done, and that the thing doesn't happen again.

People like Venables and Thomson and Tobin are like Tsunamis. They wreak havoc in their wake, and hurt many people in the process - and we have as much control over them as we do over a tidal wave.

Maybe at times we just have to step back and make the most of life, with all its pain and all its pleasure. Accept the good and bad that we have, rather than trying to fix things that can't be repaired.

The worst thing about this case to me is the knowledge that, in a week's time, people will have forgotten all about it, and will be screaming "the sky is falling" because some other Chicken Licken will have diverted their attention.

And as the mob reassembles, there will be someone somewhere screaming "will nobody think of our children". And Denise Bulger will be thinking, "I never stop" - but her tragedy ill be last week's news again. I wonder how she feels watching the same people who were so racked by concern, after they have forgotten.

Meanwhile, the people who really care will remember, even though they wish they could forget. It won't be a case of one tragedy replacing another, it will be one tragedy on top of another.

My overall feeling is that people actually enjoy talking about these murders. How else do you explain the lust for graphic detail of the case? And as I type this a child somewhere dies of disease or starvation, yet the death of this one child in an affluent country merits more angst and sorrow.

I wish people would open their eyes.

Fantastic post FR. :top marks

[J-C]

it's not a competition...


What do you mean by this??

Get a grip, we have differing views on this subject and this is what we are posting, we're not trying to outdo each other, just trying to clarify our position and where we stand re the Bulger killers.

[J-C]

Completely untrue.


Sorry Steve I misread it, says they were charged the following day of kidnap, not that they had attempted kidnap the following day, my mistake.:agree:

[J-C]

I had noticed that the original 10 yr initial sentance was increased to 15 but after appeal it stayed that way.

[hibiedude]

I'll assume you mean a non-parole period of 25 years imprisonment, because as has been said so many times, they are both on life sentences.

I'm not sure how it represents a staggering failure to be honest? It is simply not possible to have people under constant supervision 24 hours a day. What could have been done by the Probation Service if Venables has committed a rape, for example?

Sorry Steve I Did mean non-parole period of 25 years' the murder of a child should always bring the stiffest of sentences.

Robert Black
Brady and Hindley
Ian Huntley
Roy Whiting
Thompson and Venables

Apart from the last 2 the rest will never be released and will probably die in Prison like Mayra Hindley

Thompson and Venables were given a better life after they killed James Bulger 1993and they got 8 years minimum sentence which was the original sentence passed down. 2001 they are released on a life licence.

They were given new names and live at new addresses they were given a better education then they would have received if they hadn’t killed young James.

All the names mentioned are child killers but Thompson and Venables were kids themselves then they took James Bulger’s life.

The system in my opinion has let the Bulger family down and someone needs to put there hands up and say we got this wrong and apologize.

[Phil D. Rolls]

[B]
The system in my opinion has let the Bulger family down and someone needs to put there hands up and say we got this wrong and apologize.

Mrs Bulger needs help and support, there can be no doubt of that. I find it deeply distressing that she tried to track one of them down, for example.

[EuanH78]

Sorry Steve I Did mean non-parole period of 25 years' the murder of a child should always bring the stiffest of sentences.

Robert Black
Brady and Hindley
Ian Huntley
Roy Whiting
Thompson and Venables

Apart from the last 2 the rest will never be released and will probably die in Prison like Mayra Hindley

Thompson and Venables were given a better life after they killed James Bulger 1993and they got 8 years minimum sentence which was the original sentence passed down. 2001 they are released on a life licence.

They were given new names and live at new addresses they were given a better education then they would have received if they hadn’t killed young James.

All the names mentioned are child killers but Thompson and Venables were kids themselves then they took James Bulger’s life.

The system in my opinion has let the Bulger family down and someone needs to put there hands up and say we got this wrong and apologize.

Where has the system let the Bulger family down? The killers of James were caught, tried and punished.

What happened to James was as horrific as it was tragic. I don't think anyone would try to argue differently. But seriously, in good conscience, you would send a ten year old to jail for a minimum of 25 years?

The reason they served 8 years has been given, That is because (in case anyone missed it) Thompson and Venables, during those 8 years underwent rehabilitation as young offenders. After those 8 years they would have to be moved to an adult prison, an enviroment that was likely to be counter productive to the rehabilitation they had already received.

I am happy that those qualified to make the decision about their release were satisfied that they posed 'no significant danger to society' and their opinion has been borne out for nearly a decade.

No-one, as yet knows the details of why Venables has been recalled to prison.

Calling people 'Pure or unadulterated' evil at ten years old is a ridiculous knee jerk reaction that the likes of the Sun whip up to sell papers on the back of peoples faux moral outrage. I certainly wont be relying on the Sun to calibrate my moral compass.

If people want to be outraged? they should be outraged at what happens to a couple of ten year olds that make them even think of something like this?
If you want a societal failure to be outraged at, there it is. James Bulger is the extremely sad end product of that.

Then again, that would require uncomfortable trains of thought wouldn't it? maybe a 'good nights sleep' wouldn't be so easy to come by afterwards. Much better just to say 'pure evil, hang them' and forget about it.

[McIntosh]

Ironically, I think it is the hysteria generated about potential paedophiles, that stops most adults intervening in any situation that involves children.

Maybe a bit of balance is needed, as at the moment most people I know won't get involved with ticking off kids because they might get called a nonce.
:top markswell said. What happened in 1993 was shocking but Thompson and Venables were children. In this country knee jerk reactions and displays of vulgar emotions seem to have become as common as they are counter-productive.

[hibiedude]

Where has the system let the Bulger family down? The killers of James were caught, tried and punished.

What happened to James was as horrific as it was tragic. I don't think anyone would try to argue differently. But seriously, in good conscience, you would send a ten year old to jail for a minimum of 25 years?

The reason they served 8 years has been given, That is because (in case anyone missed it) Thompson and Venables, during those 8 years underwent rehabilitation as young offenders. After those 8 years they would have to be moved to an adult prison, an enviroment that was likely to be counter productive to the rehabilitation they had already received.

I am happy that those qualified to make the decision about their release were satisfied that they posed 'no significant danger to society' and their opinion has been borne out for nearly a decade.
No-one, as yet knows the details of why Venables has been recalled to prison.

Calling people 'Pure or unadulterated' evil at ten years old is a ridiculous knee jerk reaction that the likes of the Sun whip up to sell papers on the back of peoples faux moral outrage. I certainly wont be relying on the Sun to calibrate my moral compass.

If people want to be outraged? they should be outraged at what happens to a couple of ten year olds that make them even think of something like this?
If you want a societal failure to be outraged at, there it is. James Bulger is the extremely sad end product of that.

Then again, that would require uncomfortable trains of thought wouldn't it? maybe a 'good nights sleep' wouldn't be so easy to come by afterwards. Much better just to say 'pure evil, hang them' and forget about it.

Those qualified to make these important decision about who and when people are release and do pose a significant danger to society people like Robert Moone the castairs butcher now being prepared for freedom because the experts say its now safe to let him live free in society once again.

Please don’t check the internet yet but could you tell me by memory any of the victims names that were slaughtered by this butcher

How many Killers have been freed then went on to kill again who’s is to blame when that happens is that those qualified people your talk about.

Denise Bulger clearly feels justice is only for the guilty and the victims are left with the pain- she lost a 2 year old son in horrific circumstances and she heard every disturbing detail of what happened to her young Son James then months after that she lost her Husband Ralph (Divorced) so her life at that time was over.

You or I will hopefully never know what its like to lose a son/Daughter under these terrible circumstances then to relive it all again because Thompson is back under lock and key were he belongs.

And I was serious when I said that these 2 lads should have been sentenced to Minimum 25 years, you give the impression that these guys were not known to the police before they murdered James Bulger the facts are the Venables/Thompson family’s were well known for there anti social behaviour.

I don't do knee jerk reaction I just call it how I see it

[Betty Boop]

Those qualified to make these important decision about who and when people are release and do pose a significant danger to society people like Robert Moone the castairs butcher now being prepared for freedom because the experts say its now safe to let him live free in society once again.

Please don’t check the internet yet but could you tell me by memory any of the victims names that were slaughtered by this butcher

How many Killers have been freed then went on to kill again who’s is to blame when that happens is that those qualified people your talk about.

Denise Bulger clearly feels justice is only for the guilty and the victims are left with the pain- she lost a 2 year old son in horrific circumstances and she heard every disturbing detail of what happened to her young Son James then months after that she lost her Husband Ralph (Divorced) so her life at that time was over.

You or I will hopefully never know what its like to lose a son/Daughter under these terrible circumstances then to relive it all again because Thompson is back under lock and key were he belongs.

And I was serious when I said that these 2 lads should have been sentenced to Minimum 25 years, you give the impression that these guys were not known to the police before they murdered James Bulger the facts are the Venables/Thompson family’s were well known for there anti social behaviour.

I don't do knee jerk reaction I just call it how I see it

Thompson is not under lock and key.

[CropleyWasGod]

Those qualified to make these important decision about who and when people are release and do pose a significant danger to society people like Robert Moone the castairs butcher now being prepared for freedom because the experts say its now safe to let him live free in society once again.

Please don’t check the internet yet but could you tell me by memory any of the victims names that were slaughtered by this butcher

How many Killers have been freed then went on to kill again who’s is to blame when that happens is that those qualified people your talk about.

Denise Bulger clearly feels justice is only for the guilty and the victims are left with the pain- she lost a 2 year old son in horrific circumstances and she heard every disturbing detail of what happened to her young Son James then months after that she lost her Husband Ralph (Divorced) so her life at that time was over.

You or I will hopefully never know what its like to lose a son/Daughter under these terrible circumstances then to relive it all again because Thompson is back under lock and key were he belongs.

And I was serious when I said that these 2 lads should have been sentenced to Minimum 25 years, you give the impression that these guys were not known to the police before they murdered James Bulger the facts are the Venables/Thompson family’s were well known for there anti social behaviour.

I don't do knee jerk reaction I just call it how I see it

This is a bit of a ramble, but I think I understand what you're saying.

I think you are saying that, because Robert Mone was released and then killed again, no killers should be released.

I will turn your question on its head and ask.... how many killers have been released, and gone on to be valuable members of society? I don't think you could answer that, because, quite simply, we never hear about them. They are not news.

Because one person (eg the "expert" that "allowed" Mone out) didn't get it right, you seem to be assuming that no other "expert" can be right. That is very unfair on the majority of social workers, sociologists, therapists and other professionals who do get it right... but who we never hear about.

[Betty Boop]

This is a bit of a ramble, but I think I understand what you're saying.

I think you are saying that, because Robert Mone was released and then killed again, no killers should be released.

I will turn your question on its head and ask.... how many killers have been released, and gone on to be valuable members of society? I don't think you could answer that, because, quite simply, we never hear about them. They are not news.

Because one person (eg the "expert" that "allowed" Mone out) didn't get it right, you seem to be assuming that no other "expert" can be right. That is very unfair on the majority of social workers, sociologists, therapists and other professionals who do get it right... but who we never hear about.

I thought that Mone escaped from Carstairs, along with Thomas McCulloch, they then went on to murder a policeman, having already murdered a fellow patient. I don't think Mone was ever released?

[CropleyWasGod]

I thought that Mone escaped from Carstairs, along with Thomas McCulloch, they then went on to murder a policeman, having already murdered a fellow patient. I don't think Mone was ever released?

Actually, I think you're right. Am I getting mixed up with Jimmy Boyle?

No matter. My point stands.

[Betty Boop]

Actually, I think you're right. Am I getting mixed up with Jimmy Boyle?

No matter. My point stands.

Absolutely! :agree:

[McIntosh]

In relation to the hysteria relating to Venables where is the presumption of innocence, where is the right to a fair trial and where is the rule of law.

As it stands he has been accused of an offence not convicted of it - this is a simple fact. If we deny him or anyone the right to a fair trial and their human rights we enter the abyss - the rule of the mob, potentially more dangerous than anything that we can perceive off on this board.

[EuanH78]

Those qualified to make these important decision about who and when people are release and do pose a significant danger to society people like Robert Moone the castairs butcher now being prepared for freedom because the experts say its now safe to let him live free in society once again.

Please don’t check the internet yet but could you tell me by memory any of the victims names that were slaughtered by this butcher

How many Killers have been freed then went on to kill again who’s is to blame when that happens is that those qualified people your talk about.

Denise Bulger clearly feels justice is only for the guilty and the victims are left with the pain- she lost a 2 year old son in horrific circumstances and she heard every disturbing detail of what happened to her young Son James then months after that she lost her Husband Ralph (Divorced) so her life at that time was over.

You or I will hopefully never know what its like to lose a son/Daughter under these terrible circumstances then to relive it all again because Thompson is back under lock and key were he belongs.

And I was serious when I said that these 2 lads should have been sentenced to Minimum 25 years, you give the impression that these guys were not known to the police before they murdered James Bulger the facts are the Venables/Thompson family’s were well known for there anti social behaviour.

I don't do knee jerk reaction I just call it how I see it

I couldn't name any of Mone's victims, no. I will research it if you think it will illuminate me though?

[edit] I read that Mone escaped in 1976 (2 years before I was born btw) he has been inside for 34 years since the escape, 9 years more than your 25 year minimum.

You seem to have a problem that they are preparing Mone for release and dressing that up as some sort of fact to prove your point. He, as yet has not been released and has therefor not re-offended, correct?

If I'm perfectly honest, I would rather the clinical psychologists, behavioural therapists, social workers etc.. got to make the call of who is a 'danger to society' than tabloid newspaper editors/ journalists/ readers and the victims of crimes.

I am not for a second suggesting that they are infallible. I am suggesting however, that they are eminently more qualified to make that decision than you or I, the editor of the Sun newspaper or indeed, Denise Fergus (as she has now re-married).

I would agree with you that we should all be able to feel sympathy for Denise, That does not mean she should be allowed to dictate policy on the rehabilitation of young (or any other kind of) offenders.

The last bit I have bolded is exactly my point. It was known the background of these two boys.

Thompson in particular was growing up in a brutal enviroment and yet where was the intervention for him? Who was protecting him? Is he not a victim here as well?

At the time, in one of the most deprived area's of the country Thompson had one absent parent and the other and depressive alcoholic unable to control her 7 children (of which he is the 5th) NSPCC reports say the children bit, hammered, battered and tortured each other.

Child that is bitten, hammered, battered and tortured without intervention goes onto to do the same somewhere else. Are you really surprised?

Do you not think social services should take some of the blame here? Neighbours/ friends/ extended family/ teachers/ community? Do you not think that the government should take some of the blame for creating the socio-economic conditions that allowed this dysfunctional family to exist? What about the voters who backed the government of the time, voted for them and their economic policy?

Society failed Jon Venables and Robert Thompson in the first instance. James Bulger is the tragic and depressing end product of that failure. I think we would be better served addressing that initial failure rather than holding a vendetta against 'victims' who did something when they were 10 years old.

[Pete]

Firstly, JC50's link is to Wikipedia. Personally I would take anything written on Wikipedia with a pinch of salt considering anybody can type whatever they want on it.

I read his original link which wasn't wikipedia.



You're asking how I would have reacted if I had been one of the adults. You have to put yourself back to the time in question, when there had been no abductions and murders of 2 year old kids by 10 year olds and the world wasn't as cynical as it is now. I think then that their stories would have sounded more plausible. And don't you think these people in question probably beat themselves up every day about this now thinking 'if only I had intervened?' Don't think there is any need to call them stupid or gullible.

Maybe a bit harsh but it's so frustrating reading about all the missed opportunities. There just so many times where it could have been nipped in the bud.
You're speaking about that time as if it was that different to todays society and I have to disagree. There were still murders, paedophilia etc...and people weren't really any less cynical than we are today.
I think common sense is still common sense regardless of the era and an unuasually high amount of people were lacking it that night.

[Steve-O]

EuanH78 - you are speaking a lot of sense. :agree:

[ArabHibee]

I read his original link which wasn't wikipedia.



Maybe a bit harsh but it's so frustrating reading about all the missed opportunities. There just so many times where it could have been nipped in the bud.
You're speaking about that time as if it was that different to todays society and I have to disagree. There were still murders, paedophilia etc...and people weren't really any less cynical than we are today.
I think common sense is still common sense regardless of the era and an unuasually high amount of people were lacking it that night.

:brickwall

You just can't see where I am coming from on this. How can you say that today's society is the same as it was nearly 18 years ago? I agree that there were still murders, paedophilia etc but there had not been the torture and murder of a 2 year old boy by 10 year olds. That's the difference. And now you are saying that the adults who spoke to the 2 boys had no common sense? Deary me. Easy to say that in hindsight isn't it?

[Pete]

:brickwall

You just can't see where I am coming from on this. How can you say that today's society is the same as it was nearly 18 years ago? I agree that there were still murders, paedophilia etc but there had not been the torture and murder of a 2 year old boy by 10 year olds. That's the difference. And now you are saying that the adults who spoke to the 2 boys had no common sense? Deary me. Easy to say that in hindsight isn't it?

No, I don't.

[ArabHibee]

I couldn't name any of Mone's victims, no. I will research it if you think it will illuminate me though?

[edit] I read that Mone escaped in 1976 (2 years before I was born btw) he has been inside for 34 years since the escape, 9 years more than your 25 year minimum.

You seem to have a problem that they are preparing Mone for release and dressing that up as some sort of fact to prove your point. He, as yet has not been released and has therefor not re-offended, correct?

If I'm perfectly honest, I would rather the clinical psychologists, behavioural therapists, social workers etc.. got to make the call of who is a 'danger to society' than tabloid newspaper editors/ journalists/ readers and the victims of crimes.

I am not for a second suggesting that they are infallible. I am suggesting however, that they are eminently more qualified to make that decision than you or I, the editor of the Sun newspaper or indeed, Denise Fergus (as she has now re-married).

I would agree with you that we should all be able to feel sympathy for Denise, That does not mean she should be allowed to dictate policy on the rehabilitation of young (or any other kind of) offenders.

The last bit I have bolded is exactly my point. It was known the background of these two boys.

Thompson in particular was growing up in a brutal enviroment and yet where was the intervention for him? Who was protecting him? Is he not a victim here as well?

At the time, in one of the most deprived area's of the country Thompson had one absent parent and the other and depressive alcoholic unable to control her 7 children (of which he is the 5th) NSPCC reports say the children bit, hammered, battered and tortured each other.

Child that is bitten, hammered, battered and tortured without intervention goes onto to do the same somewhere else. Are you really surprised?

Do you not think social services should take some of the blame here? Neighbours/ friends/ extended family/ teachers/ community? Do you not think that the government should take some of the blame for creating the socio-economic conditions that allowed this dysfunctional family to exist? What about the voters who backed the government of the time, voted for them and their economic policy?

Society failed Jon Venables and Robert Thompson in the first instance. James Bulger is the tragic and depressing end product of that failure. I think we would be better served addressing that initial failure rather than holding a vendetta against 'victims' who did something when they were 10 years old.

Aye, let's just blame society then. :rolleyes:

[Removed]

:brickwall

You just can't see where I am coming from on this. How can you say that today's society is the same as it was nearly 18 years ago? I agree that there were still murders, paedophilia etc but there had not been the torture and murder of a 2 year old boy by 10 year olds. That's the difference. And now you are saying that the adults who spoke to the 2 boys had no common sense? Deary me. Easy to say that in hindsight isn't it?

You're wasting your time AH. We've already been told it's the fault of society, the voter, social services and the government.

Apparantly Thompson and Venables are the victims.

Steve-O agrees so that settles it :agree:

[ArabHibee]

No, I don't.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

[Steve-O]

You're wasting your time AH. We've already been told it's the fault of society, the voter, social services and the government.

Apparantly Thompson and Venables are the victims.

Steve-O agrees so that settles it :agree:

I never said any of the above.

If you can't see that their past contributed to their crime, then there is really no hope for you.

Victims becoming perpetrators is nothing new.

Nobody is saying it's not terrible what they did, however arguments that they are simply 'pure evil' are just easy, and akin to the plot of a horror movie like John Carpenter's Halloween, i.e. fiction.

[Removed]

I never said any of the above.

If you can't see that their past contributed to their crime, then there is really no hope for you.

Victims becoming perpetrators is nothing new.

Nobody is saying it's not terrible what they did, however arguments that they are simply 'pure evil' are just easy, and akin to the plot of a horror movie like John Carpenter's Halloween, i.e. fiction.

No, but EuanH78 did and you said


EuanH78 - you are speaking a lot of sense. :agree:

No hope for me :faf: You don't half spout some pish.

What about all the lads who had a similar upbringing and didn't murder an innocent child. It's dead easy to just blame it on society. Poor lads, victim of their upbringing :blah: :blah: :blah:

Using your logic it's a wonder kids weren't getting murdered every other day.

[Pete]

No, but EuanH78 did and you said



No hope for me :faf: You don't half spout some pish.

What about all the lads who had a similar upbringing and didn't murder an innocent child. It's dead easy to just blame it on society. Poor lads, victim of their upbringing :blah: :blah: :blah:

Using your logic it's a wonder kids weren't getting murdered every other day.


I don't think anyone is blaming the crime entirely on their upbringing, background etc... but why can't you see it as contributing factor?

In my opinion it's a combination of all the factors everyone has mentioned....and a mad chain of events that were to blame for this crime.

[J-C]

I don't think anyone is blaming the crime entirely on their upbringing, background etc... but why can't you see it as contributing factor?

In my opinion it's a combination of all the factors everyone has mentioned....and a mad chain of events that were to blame for this crime.


Isn't a lot of crime and murders in particular factors of upbringing and social problems, I think you'll find a high proportion of criminals have social and upbringing problems, don't have to be Sherlock Holms to to work that out.

Whether they had all these problems, it still takes the human brain to work out the difference between good and evil and I'm sure most of us on here who have been in contact at some point intheir lives with 10 year olds, know they know that difference.

[Removed]

I don't think anyone is blaming the crime entirely on their upbringing, background etc... but why can't you see it as contributing factor?

In my opinion it's a combination of all the factors everyone has mentioned....and a mad chain of events that were to blame for this crime.

None of us will really ever know how much their upbringing contributed but can you and others see that being any sort of apologist for these individuals is not the general consensus and gets folks backs up.

I really cannot see that there is any justification or rational explanation for what they did and at the age they did it. What was is in their heads that made them do it. I don't know, but surely no matter what they had been through they must have known that killing a young boy was wrong - or did they :dunno:

I have two boys ages 11 and 9. I am very careful what they watch on tv and the type of video games they play because I do agree that these things can influence behaviour. What is it though that pushed these two over the edge to commit the crime they did. Either they have something mentally wrong with them or maybe they are just downright evil. Environmental or social factors I would agree can have an effect but imo these are minimal in the big picture of what they did but that is just my view from the way I have been brought up. I'm sure most folk would tend to agree though but that's just from the circle of friends I have and work mates.

[EuanH78]

None of us will really ever know how much their upbringing contributed but can you and others see that being any sort of apologist for these individuals is not the general consensus and gets folks backs up.

I really cannot see that there is any justification or rational explanation for what they did and at the age they did it. What was is in their heads that made them do it. I don't know, but surely no matter what they had been through they must have known that killing a young boy was wrong - or did they :dunno:

I have two boys ages 11 and 9. I am very careful what they watch on tv and the type of video games they play because I do agree that these things can influence behaviour. What is it though that pushed these two over the edge to commit the crime they did. Either they have something mentally wrong with them or maybe they are just downright evil. Environmental or social factors I would agree can have an effect but imo these are minimal in the big picture of what they did but that is just my view from the way I have been brought up. I'm sure most folk would tend to agree though but that's just from the circle of friends I have and work mates.

I'm not apologising on anyone's behalf, there is no justification for what they did. There are however, reasons it happened.

You have answered everything in your own post.

You have 2 boys of similar ages to the age venables and thompson were when they committed murder.
You supervise what media they are exposed to. You (I assume) treat them well and with respect, and do not routinely beat/ abuse/ torture them or let them treat each other that way. ergo you have 2 normal balanced children that know the difference between right and wrong and are guided morally by the values you have given them. These are not minimal factors, a child is the product of his/ her enviroment.

I chose to highlight Thompson because he was the supposed leader of the 2 and had the most horrific of the backgrounds. He was acting out the values that had been imposed on him. Cause and effect.

You talk about 'your view' from the way you grew up'. What do you think Thompsons view was without anyone to offer any positive influence.

It's a difficult and uncomfortable thought process if you try root cause analysis. Which is what must happen to stop this kind of thing happening.

Or,

You can say they are evil, be morally outraged and think no more about it.

Your call.

[lapsedhibee]

Do you not think social services should take some of the blame here? Neighbours/ friends/ extended family/ teachers/ community? Do you not think that the government should take some of the blame for creating the socio-economic conditions that allowed this dysfunctional family to exist? What about the voters who backed the government of the time, voted for them and their economic policy?

Yes, yes, no and no.

[Phil D. Rolls]

None of us will really ever know how much their upbringing contributed but can you and others see that being any sort of apologist for these individuals is not the general consensus and gets folks backs up.

I really cannot see that there is any justification or rational explanation for what they did and at the age they did it. What was is in their heads that made them do it. I don't know, but surely no matter what they had been through they must have known that killing a young boy was wrong - or did they :dunno:

I have two boys ages 11 and 9. I am very careful what they watch on tv and the type of video games they play because I do agree that these things can influence behaviour. What is it though that pushed these two over the edge to commit the crime they did. Either they have something mentally wrong with them or maybe they are just downright evil. Environmental or social factors I would agree can have an effect but imo these are minimal in the big picture of what they did but that is just my view from the way I have been brought up. I'm sure most folk would tend to agree though but that's just from the circle of friends I have and work mates.

I've never been a fan of the general consensus. It tends to include those with a minimal grasp of the facts, and can be volatile. At least on a complex issue like this that's what i think.

I think someone's environment and upbringing have a very profound affect on how they think. You seem to recognise that yourself, as you are careful about the influences your kids are exposed to.

I am not saying that is an excuse for these two. Lots of people have poor starts or mental illness, but don't kill people. Which leads to your question - "what was it pushed them over the edge". Personally, I think some people are just bad.

I have to say I got a horrible feeling in my stomach when I heard the allegations about Venables. It's very hard to remain objective when you hear an accusation like that.

[H18sry]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/07/jon-venables-sent-back-to-prison-over-child-porn-offence-115875-22090622/ :cool2:

[Steve-O]

I've never been a fan of the general consensus. It tends to include those with a minimal grasp of the facts, and can be volatile. At least on a complex issue like this that's what i think.

I think someone's environment and upbringing have a very profound affect on how they think. You seem to recognise that yourself, as you are careful about the influences your kids are exposed to.

I am not saying that is an excuse for these two. Lots of people have poor starts or mental illness, but don't kill people. Which leads to your question - "what was it pushed them over the edge". Personally, I think some people are just bad.

I have to say I got a horrible feeling in my stomach when I heard the allegations about Venables. It's very hard to remain objective when you hear an accusation like that.

Correct. The 'general consensus' on matters like this, is generally a load of total and utter pish.

65bd - nobody is apologising or justifying the behaviour, and it's also silly to use the 'well other kids are brought up like that and they dont kill people' argument. IMO it could just as easily have been some other kids, but it wasn't, it ended up being these 2.

Do you truly believe 2 ten year olds are just 'evil' and it's nothing to do with their upbringing?

Of course there was something mentally wrong with them, they were brought up in a totally sheeeite environment.

[Betty Boop]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/07/jon-venables-sent-back-to-prison-over-child-porn-offence-115875-22090622/ :cool2:

Earlier in the week the Mirror were reporting that he had been arrested, because of a fight at work.

[Steve-O]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/07/jon-venables-sent-back-to-prison-over-child-porn-offence-115875-22090622/ :cool2:

Allegations and nothing more. I also once again fail to see how Probation Officers could have stopped him looking up child porn on the net, if that's what happened?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Correct. The 'general consensus' on matters like this, is generally a load of total and utter pish.

65bd - nobody is apologising or justifying the behaviour, and it's also silly to use the 'well other kids are brought up like that and they dont kill people' argument. IMO it could just as easily have been some other kids, but it wasn't, it ended up being these 2.

Do you truly believe 2 ten year olds are just 'evil' and it's nothing to do with their upbringing?

Of course there was something mentally wrong with them, they were brought up in a totally sheeeite environment.

The question has to be answered though: how come other people with very similar upbringings don't kill? What is it that marked these two boys out as different from their peers?

[hibiedude]

This is a bit of a ramble, but I think I understand what you're saying.

I think you are saying that, because Robert Mone was released and then killed again, no killers should be released.

I will turn your question on its head and ask.... how many killers have been released, and gone on to be valuable members of society? I don't think you could answer that, because, quite simply, we never hear about them. They are not news.

Because one person (eg the "expert" that "allowed" Mone out) didn't get it right, you seem to be assuming that no other "expert" can be right. That is very unfair on the majority of social workers, sociologists, therapists and other professionals who do get it right... but who we never hear about.

Robert Mone escaped from Carstairs, along with Thomas McCulloch and guess what they were in Castairs for YES brutal murders.

Both could be out in Months because experts say they are safe to release, so how many people do you have to kill before life means just that LIFE.

So explain why should these guys be walking the streets any time soon and as for asking how many killers have been released and never re-offended is a fair point and yes we never hear about them which is wrong.

As for the Thompson being UNDER LOCK AND KEY AND IN A SEGRATION UNIT I think we could say its not for a minor offences. The papers and TV are full off stories today ALL saying Thompson is not the goody everyone on this site will have us believe.

Not sure who posted this but I almost fell off my chair laughing with quote; Thompson is a victim in all this just like James Bulger . Society is not to blame but some kids are born pure evil and Thompson and Venables prove this.

Hope you make sense of my Ramble :wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

Robert Mone escaped from Carstairs, along with Thomas McCulloch and guess what they were in Castairs for YES brutal murders.

Both could be out in Months because experts say they are safe to release, so how many people do you have to kill before life means just that LIFE.

So explain why should these guys be walking the streets any time soon and as for asking how many killers have been released and never re-offended is a fair point and yes we never hear about them which is wrong.

As for the Thompson being UNDER LOCK AND KEY AND IN A SEGRATION UNIT I think we could say its not for a minor offences. The papers and TV are full off stories today ALL saying Thompson is not the goody everyone on this site will have us believe.

Not sure who posted this but I almost fell off my chair laughing with quote; Thompson is a victim in all this just like James Bulger . Society is not to blame but some kids are born pure evil and Thompson and Venables prove this.

Hope you make sense of my Ramble :wink:

1. it's the experts that say it. People who know what they are talking about, rather than the newspaper editors, amateur criminologists and emotional knee-jerkers.

2. I suspect Venables (not Thompson) is in solitary for his own protection, rather than for what he is alleged to have done.

3. everyone on the site saying he is a goody? ... I can't remember a single person saying he is.

[hibiedude]

1. it's the experts that say it. People who know what they are talking about, rather than the newspaper editors, amateur criminologists and emotional knee-jerkers.

2. I suspect Thompson is in solitary for his own protection, rather than for what he is alleged to have done.

3. everyone on the site saying he is a goody? ... I can't remember a single person saying he is.

Sorry I'll changed the wording it should have said Victim something he isn't

Can I ask you this question

If Proved should Venables lose his anonymity if he is charged with new offences. ?

Even as I write this reply Skynews reporting Jon Venables, the killer of toddler James Bulger, was sent back to jail on suspected child pornography offences

[J-C]

To be honest no criminal should have his/her anonimity, we should know who they are and where they are, it's our right.

[LiverpoolHibs]

To be honest no criminal should have his/her anonimity, we should know who they are and where they are, it's our right.

What 'right' is that based on?

[J-C]

What 'right' is that based on?


Our right as free upstanding members of society, I for one would like to know if a convicted murderer or paedophile was living next to me, or would you be happy with that eh!

Nice of you to chip in to this debate LH, or were you just trying to have a wee dig at me again, extremely tedious if so.

[CropleyWasGod]

[/B]

Sorry I'll changed the wording it should have said Victim something he isn't

Can I ask you this question

If Proved should Venables lose his anonymity if he is charged with new offences. ?

Even as I write this reply Skynews reporting Jon Venables, the killer of toddler James Bulger, was sent back to jail on suspected child pornography offences

To answer your question, I will rely on the professional opinion of those qualified to give it. I suspect that his identity wouldn't be a secret for long, however, and he would be in solitary for his own protection.

As for the alleged offences, it was only a few days ago that the media was reporting that he was arrested for assault. I would therefore be careful about relying on what they are saying, until it becomes public knowledge.

[CropleyWasGod]

Our right as free upstanding members of society, I for one would like to know if a convicted murderer or paedophile was living next to me, or would you be happy with that eh!

I would be happy knowing that professionals who knew what they were talking about had made the judgement that such a person could live next door to me. I would be less happy knowing that his or her identity was in the public domain, and that their house (and mine, by mistake) could be the target for any vigilante keen to dispense their own type of justice.

[J-C]

I would be happy knowing that professionals who knew what they were talking about had made the judgement that such a person could live next door to me. I would be less happy knowing that his or her identity was in the public domain, and that their house (and mine, by mistake) could be the target for any vigilante keen to dispense their own type of justice.


We all have our opinions and this is what makes these debates interesting, hopefully we acn keep it like that.

I can see where you're coming from and accept your views, we'll agree to disagree.:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

We all have our opinions and this is what makes these debates interesting, hopefully we acn keep it like that.

I can see where you're coming from and accept your views, we'll agree to disagree.:greengrin

... aye, and since I live near to you, if you dinnae I'll be round to tan yer car !!! :grr:

[J-C]

... aye, and since I live near to you, if you dinnae I'll be round to tan yer car !!! :grr:


:faf::bye::greengrin

[ArabHibee]

I would be happy knowing that professionals who knew what they were talking about had made the judgement that such a person could live next door to me. I would be less happy knowing that his or her identity was in the public domain, and that their house (and mine, by mistake) could be the target for any vigilante keen to dispense their own type of justice.

But professionals are human too and can make mistakes, can't they?

[Betty Boop]

1. it's the experts that say it. People who know what they are talking about, rather than the newspaper editors, amateur criminologists and emotional knee-jerkers.

2. I suspect Thompson is in solitary for his own protection, rather than for what he is alleged to have done.

3. everyone on the site saying he is a goody? ... I can't remember a single person saying he is.

Venables!

[CropleyWasGod]

Venables!

Shush, you :wink:

I was responding to the previous poster, and I'm old, ok? NEVER EVER let the facts get in the way of a good rant, ok?

Now edited

[LiverpoolHibs]

Our right as free upstanding members of society, I for one would like to know if a convicted murderer or paedophile was living next to me, or would you be happy with that eh!

Nice of you to chip in to this debate LH, or were you just trying to have a wee dig at me again, extremely tedious if so.

Why would I be trying to have a dig at you?

I don't understand what right (moral, natural, legal or otherwise) you would base what you said on.

[Betty Boop]

Shush, you :wink:

I was responding to the previous poster, and I'm old, ok? NEVER EVER let the facts get in the way of a good rant, ok?

Now edited

:greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Robert Mone escaped from Carstairs, along with Thomas McCulloch and guess what they were in Castairs for YES brutal murders.

Both could be out in Months because experts say they are safe to release, so how many people do you have to kill before life means just that LIFE.

So explain why should these guys be walking the streets any time soon and as for asking how many killers have been released and never re-offended is a fair point and yes we never hear about them which is wrong.

As for the Thompson being UNDER LOCK AND KEY AND IN A SEGRATION UNIT I think we could say its not for a minor offences. The papers and TV are full off stories today ALL saying Thompson is not the goody everyone on this site will have us believe.

Not sure who posted this but I almost fell off my chair laughing with quote; Thompson is a victim in all this just like James Bulger . Society is not to blame but some kids are born pure evil and Thompson and Venables prove this.

Hope you make sense of my Ramble :wink:


[/B]

Sorry I'll changed the wording it should have said Victim something he isn't

Can I ask you this question

If Proved should Venables lose his anonymity if he is charged with new offences. ?

Even as I write this reply Skynews reporting Jon Venables, the killer of toddler James Bulger, was sent back to jail on suspected child pornography offences

The majority of people in Carstairs committed murder due to their insanity. The law treats the mad differently from the sane. The basic principle being that you can't be guilty of a crime if you didn't understand what you were doing.

If you accept that experts can judge whether someone's sanity has returned, for example in the case of people admitted to psychiatric hospital, then you have to accept that the same thing applies when they have committed a crime.

It's easy to sniff at "experts", but on the whole they do tend to know a lot more about their subject than the average Joe. Furthermore, their jobs depend on getting decisions right.

Like you I am sickened by the thought of what this man is being accused of. He hasn't been found guilty of anything, so we shouldn't judge him on what the likes of the Sunday Mirror or Sky News says. They are interested in a story, and as the hysteria builds they'll get it.

Inaccurate reporting does nothing to help the debate.

[hibiedude]

The majority of people in Carstairs committed murder due to their insanity. The law treats the mad differently from the sane. The basic principle being that you can't be guilty of a crime if you didn't understand what you were doing.

If you accept that experts can judge whether someone's sanity has returned, for example in the case of people admitted to psychiatric hospital, then you have to accept that the same thing applies when they have committed a crime.

It's easy to sniff at "experts", but on the whole they do tend to know a lot more about their subject than the average Joe. Furthermore, their jobs depend on getting decisions right.

Like you I am sickened by the thought of what this man is being accused of. He hasn't been found guilty of anything, so we shouldn't judge him on what the likes of the Sunday Mirror or Sky News says. They are interested in a story, and as the hysteria builds they'll get it.

Inaccurate reporting does nothing to help the debate.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw will say only that "extremely serious allegations" caused Venables, 27, to be returned to prison last week.

All news outlets know the new names of Thompson/Venables how do you think they got there information probably from the same people investigating the new allegations against Thompson The POLICE.

Was it not the news outlets that caught Sean Mercer than young guy who killed Rhys Jones in Liverpool because his name appeared on the internet weeks before police got there first clue. Now serving 22 years in prison

So Jack Straw words are extremely serious allegations we will never know what these allegations are because Venables has anonymity for life.

Experts also make mistakes I’m sure you’ll agree and a man who has committed 5 murders (Robert Mone) should never be released

Inaccurate reporting with a high% of truth.

[J-C]

In the Scotsman yesterday, seemingly flouting his ban on returning to liverpool area on numerous occasions.


http://news.scotsman.com/news/Killer-Jon-Venables-39returned-to.6130385.jp (http://news.scotsman.com/news/Killer-Jon-Venables-39returned-to.6130385.jp)

[Phil D. Rolls]

Justice Secretary Jack Straw will say only that "extremely serious allegations" caused Venables, 27, to be returned to prison last week.

All news outlets know the new names of Thompson/Venables how do you think they got there information probably from the same people investigating the new allegations against Thompson The POLICE.

Was it not the news outlets that caught Sean Mercer than young guy who killed Rhys Jones in Liverpool because his name appeared on the internet weeks before police got there first clue. Now serving 22 years in prison

So Jack Straw words are extremely serious allegations we will never know what these allegations are because Venables has anonymity for life.

Experts also make mistakes I’m sure you’ll agree and a man who has committed 5 murders (Robert Mone) should never be released

Inaccurate reporting with a high% of truth.

These are your views and I respect them. I don't know how you can say there is a high percentage of truth though.

I can't take the Press too seriously, they often get it spectacularly wrong (Venables is inside for: a fight at work; breaching his parole; drug taking; child porn).

I agree experts get it wrong, but I'd sooner listen to them than a braying mob that has never studied psychology, psychiatry, or even developed humane values. By that I mean people who would have a 10 year executed. They have taken themselves out of the argument IMO, as they have not shown the ability to reason.

As for Mone. I have my doubts whether someone that bad can ever be cured. In principle though, I have to accept that he as rights like everyone else.

[Twa Cairpets]

To be honest no criminal should have his/her anonimity, we should know who they are and where they are, it's our right.

I dont know if it is a right, to be honest JC.

Logical conclusion to this argument would be that anyone convicted of any offence has there details listed in an accesible place, lets say online. This would mean that - following your argument through to the end - you could look up everyone in your street to see what they've done. Drink driving/fraud/assualt the lot. Nah, dont like that (and I've not even had a speeding ticket).

It would be a "right" that would deny other rights.

[hibiedude]

These are your views and I respect them. I don't know how you can say there is a high percentage of truth though.

I can't take the Press too seriously, they often get it spectacularly wrong (Venables is inside for: a fight at work; breaching his parole; drug taking; child porn).

I agree experts get it wrong, but I'd sooner listen to them than a braying mob that has never studied psychology, psychiatry, or even developed humane values. By that I mean people who would have a 10 year executed. They have taken themselves out of the argument IMO, as they have not shown the ability to reason.

As for Mone. I have my doubts whether someone that bad can ever be cured. In principle though, I have to accept that he as rights like everyone else.

I have always respected your views and like the manner which you reply
you come accross as a decent guy and never get involved in the name calling nonsense.

Everyone has rights even the Yorkshire Ripper who is seeking through court to be declared sane and have a tariff set so he can be released one day but we all know that will never happen.

I believe that the reporting on Thompsons new alleged offences carry more truth than lies.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I have always respected your views and like the manner which you reply
you come accross as a decent guy and never get involved in the name calling nonsense.

Everyone has rights even the Yorkshire Ripper who is seeking through court to be declared sane and have a tariff set so he can be released one day but we all know that will never happen.

I believe that the reporting on Thompsons new alleged offences carry more truth than lies.

It's a hell of thing to make up if untrue! I've got to be honest and admit I don't want this to be true, it's too horrible to contemplate, and really stretches my ability to be objective about it.

The thing about the Ripper is that they are contemplating discharging him providing he keeps to his medication regime. I'm guessing that as a paranoid schizophrenic it will mean having a regular depot injection. I don't know about England, but in Scotland that means that if you don't show up for your jag they can bring you in and detain you.

I also think that wherever Sutcliffe settles, he won't be far from a policeman!

[J-C]

I dont know if it is a right, to be honest JC.

Logical conclusion to this argument would be that anyone convicted of any offence has there details listed in an accesible place, lets say online. This would mean that - following your argument through to the end - you could look up everyone in your street to see what they've done. Drink driving/fraud/assualt the lot. Nah, dont like that (and I've not even had a speeding ticket).

It would be a "right" that would deny other rights.


I understand that TC and accept were you're coming from, anonimity has to be given to avoid problems with vigilantes etc so from that point of view I retract the statement concerning my rights.

[Steve-O]

The question has to be answered though: how come other people with very similar upbringings don't kill? What is it that marked these two boys out as different from their peers?

I don't think there's any great answer to it. Not everyone with a poor upbringing gets into trouble, but they are more likely to IMO. This pair just started a bit younger than normal, and went a bit further than normal, however I bet there are similar little brats running about mental all round the country causing all kinds of bother, on a slightly lesser scale.

[Steve-O]

I dont know if it is a right, to be honest JC.

Logical conclusion to this argument would be that anyone convicted of any offence has there details listed in an accesible place, lets say online. This would mean that - following your argument through to the end - you could look up everyone in your street to see what they've done. Drink driving/fraud/assualt the lot. Nah, dont like that (and I've not even had a speeding ticket).

It would be a "right" that would deny other rights.

Exactly. It's ludicrous to say that any criminal should be denied any privacy whatsoever and that anyone who has never committed a crime can just look up all these details whenever they please.

Edit - I now see that JC50 is not saying this anymore anyway.

[Steve-O]

But professionals are human too and can make mistakes, can't they?

Yes they can, however I think they are less likely to make such a mistake than someone who doesn't know what they are talking about? Hence why they are considered an 'expert'?

It's impossible to predict 100% that someone will not reoffend.

[Steve-O]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2882769/Jon-Venables-locked-back-up-amid-allegations-he-was-hoarding-child-porn.html

Laughable stuff from the Sun here with various quotes from 'experts' and 'sources' :bye:

I can't see why for the crime of murdering a kid when you were 10, you would have a parole condition saying you were either unable to access the internet, or have your internet use monitored by Probation? :confused:

More s**t-stirring to get the 'great British public' outraged at the 'terrible' job Probation Services have done :blah:

Denise Fergus also needs to pull her head in on this issue. She surely knows that if he loses the anonimity he would likely be killed? If that's what she wants, then she should just say it, rather than hiding behind the fact she wants normal 'justice'? Also, why can't she accept what Jack Straw is saying? A politician should not exert influence over such cases and she contradicts herself by saying Venables should be treated the same as other criminals.

[J-C]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2882769/Jon-Venables-locked-back-up-amid-allegations-he-was-hoarding-child-porn.html (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2882769/Jon-Venables-locked-back-up-amid-allegations-he-was-hoarding-child-porn.html)

Laughable stuff from the Sun here with various quotes from 'experts' and 'sources' :bye:

I can't see why for the crime of murdering a kid when you were 10, you would have a parole condition saying you were either unable to access the internet, or have your internet use monitored by Probation? :confused:

More s**t-stirring to get the 'great British public' outraged at the 'terrible' job Probation Services have done :blah:

Denise Fergus also needs to pull her head in on this issue. She surely knows that if he loses the anonimity he would likely be killed? If that's what she wants, then she should just say it, rather than hiding behind the fact she wants normal 'justice'? Also, why can't she accept what Jack Straw is saying? A politician should not exert influence over such cases and she contradicts herself by saying Venables should be treated the same as other criminals.

Probably because the internet and x rated films were part of the corruption of his brain at the time, also if he's got a thing about violence towards kids, then supervision on the internet is pretty obvious, just like supervising your own kids.

I also think that most people only want to know what Venables has done to get himself re admitted to jail, if it's something pretty trivial then there wouldn't be an outcry but if it's more severe then most want to know.


On our right to know issue that I posted, well lets say I posted without thinking properly, after reading and thinking I realised I was totally wrong there.:bitchy:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yes they can, however I think they are less likely to make such a mistake than someone who doesn't know what they are talking about? Hence why they are considered an 'expert'?

It's impossible to predict 100% that someone will not reoffend.

Nail hit on head. Experts make mistakes, but I'd be more likely to trust their opinion than someone who forms opinions based on their emotional response alone.


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2882769/Jon-Venables-locked-back-up-amid-allegations-he-was-hoarding-child-porn.html

Laughable stuff from the Sun here with various quotes from 'experts' and 'sources' :bye:

I can't see why for the crime of murdering a kid when you were 10, you would have a parole condition saying you were either unable to access the internet, or have your internet use monitored by Probation? :confused:

More s**t-stirring to get the 'great British public' outraged at the 'terrible' job Probation Services have done :blah:

Denise Fergus also needs to pull her head in on this issue. She surely knows that if he loses the anonimity he would likely be killed? If that's what she wants, then she should just say it, rather than hiding behind the fact she wants normal 'justice'? Also, why can't she accept what Jack Straw is saying? A politician should not exert influence over such cases and she contradicts herself by saying Venables should be treated the same as other criminals.

The Sun preys on people's ignorance. What pees me off that their fundamentalist attitude to life is usually contradicted within the same edition of the paper. They will bang on about morality, and then run a piece telling us what Katie "Vaccuum" Price has been up to.

At the end of the day though, if their readers weren't so stupid they'd see the irony, and disregard anything the paper says. (Same goes for just about every other branch of the media.)

As for Denise Fergus. I think it is cruel to ask this woman's opinion. She can never be objective on the case, and will always be speaking from a position of hurt. How can we expect the woman to talk sense when life to her has become complete non-sense?

[heretoday]

I don't often hear the parents of the Bulger killers mentioned in dispatches. Did they have any? They should have been in the dock as well as their little demons.

As for the British media - I long ago gave up buying papers hoping for any sense out of them.

[steakbake]

The tabloids are whipping up a very dangerous storm here.

Denise Fergus has no right to know what a.k.a Venables is back inside for. I'm disappointed that Jack Straw has even agreed to meet her to discuss anything. A.k.a Venables has served the time for that particular crime however short and unsatisfying that was to many, and may or may not be (allegedly) about to stand trial for separate charges. It has nothing to do with the original case, with Denise Fergus, the tabloids, or indeed the millions of people foaming at the mouth about it.

A lawyer friend of mine once said that the law doesn't dispense justice. It can and should only ever be an application of the law. That is sometimes uncomfortable for people, but that is just the way it is.

The law has to be remote, cold and blind: dispassionate, evidence based, process based and as a result, morally neutral. It would be very dangerous for the law to be about who shouts loudest, cries the most or is most hurt or damaged. If that is the case, then the rule of law has been broken and it is not the kind of country I would want to live in.

We may as well text vote on whether someone is guilty or not guilty and do away with juries, judges and the legal process.

[hibsbollah]

Straw speaking in the Commons now, robustly defending his silence on the substance of the allegations;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2010/mar/08/bulger-justice (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2010/mar/08/bulger-justice)

[Phil D. Rolls]

Straw speaking in the Commons now, robustly defending his silence on the substance of the allegations;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2010/mar/08/bulger-justice (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2010/mar/08/bulger-justice)

Some interesting stuff there about the press reporting of the case, and also whether Ms Fergus should have been told. It seems that there was a strong possibility that justice would be compromised.

I'm not blaming the woman for feeling as she does about Venables, but it seems to me that if she had the information she would be sharing it with the press. The press of course could act with a bit more responsibility, but we have to live in the real world.

It's important to remember that everyone has a right to a fair trial. A lot of the stuff that's been written has almost read like he has already been convicted. Given the prejudice that has been shown towards Venables, I have to agree with Straw's approach.

No doubt the likes of the Sun would be delighted if their reporting scuppered the guy's trial. It would give them even more sh*t to stir, and pile more misery on those whose lives have been ruined.

[hibsbollah]

Some interesting stuff there about the press reporting of the case, and also whether Ms Fergus should have been told. It seems that there was a strong possibility that justice would be compromised.

I'm not blaming the woman for feeling as she does about Venables, but it seems to me that if she had the information she would be sharing it with the press. The press of course could act with a bit more responsibility, but we have to live in the real world.

It's important to remember that everyone has a right to a fair trial. A lot of the stuff that's been written has almost read like he has already been convicted. Given the prejudice that has been shown towards Venables, I have to agree with Straw's approach.

No doubt the likes of the Sun would be delighted if their reporting scuppered the guy's trial. It would give them even more sh*t to stir, and pile more misery on those whose lives have been ruined.

What stood out for me was Denise Fergus' MP saying that she felt upset by the press coverage. This is at odds with the press interpretation, which is that she feels upset at the Govt.

I see that odious **** Kelvin Mckenzie was on BBC news saying he thinks Venables' identity should be revealed. You'd think he'd keep his mouth shut on all matters relating to Merseyside.

[Hibs Class]

I heard a report on this on the radio news earlier. There was a fairly strong suggestion that the public does have a right to know more about Venables (although they weren't clear about exactly what information the public had a right to), which seems to have been one of the debated issues on this thread. Of greater importance, however, seems to have been Venables right to safety which could be compromised if more information were made available.

That makes sense, but it is also interesting that there seems to be a "default" position of making information publicly available.

[Phil D. Rolls]

What stood out for me was Denise Fergus' MP saying that she felt upset by the press coverage. This is at odds with the press interpretation, which is that she feels upset at the Govt.

I see that odious **** Kelvin Mckenzie was on BBC news saying he thinks Venables' identity should be revealed. You'd think he'd keep his mouth shut on all matters relating to Merseyside.

It makes me think of that woman who was set up to complain about Gordon Brown, when he spelled her son's name wrong. The press don't come out of this looking too great.


I heard a report on this on the radio news earlier. There was a fairly strong suggestion that the public does have a right to know more about Venables (although they weren't clear about exactly what information the public had a right to), which seems to have been one of the debated issues on this thread. Of greater importance, however, seems to have been Venables right to safety which could be compromised if more information were made available.

That makes sense, but it is also interesting that there seems to be a "default" position of making information publicly available.

I think they make it up as they go along. Which makes sense, because how many cases like this are there?

[hibiedude]

Some interesting stuff there about the press reporting of the case, and also whether Ms Fergus should have been told. It seems that there was a strong possibility that justice would be compromised.

I'm not blaming the woman for feeling as she does about Venables, but it seems to me that if she had the information she would be sharing it with the press. The press of course could act with a bit more responsibility, but we have to live in the real world.

It's important to remember that everyone has a right to a fair trial. A lot of the stuff that's been written has almost read like he has already been convicted. Given the prejudice that has been shown towards Venables, I have to agree with Straw's approach.

No doubt the likes of the Sun would be delighted if their reporting scuppered the guy's trial. It would give them even more sh*t to stir, and pile more misery on those whose lives have been ruined.

I’m not sure how we could have a fair trial if the allegations are proved true because we’ll never know Thompson full identity or what the charges are, how do you go about picking a jury or is it all done in private.

I think the press have all the information they need regarding the new allegations against Thompson but due to legal reasons they cant print the full details. I don’t think the Denise Fergus would talk to the press and jeopardize any future charges made against Thompson.

[EuanH78]

I’m not sure how we could have a fair trial if the allegations are proved true because we’ll never know Thompson full identity or what the charges are, how do you go about picking a jury or is it all done in private.

I think the press have all the information they need regarding the new allegations against Thompson but due to legal reasons they cant print the full details. I don’t think the Denise Fergus would talk to the press and jeopardize any future charges made against Thompson.

Thompson (though the apparent ringleader of the 2 at the time and certainly the one that had the most brutal upbringing) has not been recalled to prison for any breach of his life sentance. Venables has.

Does this mean the experts were right or wrong?

Does Thompson deserve to be recalled as well? Just in case?

[ArabHibee]

Who was it that actually "broke" the story of him being recalled? Was it the media? Surely they've broken some rules by doing that?

[Mibbes Aye]

The tabloids are whipping up a very dangerous storm here.

Denise Fergus has no right to know what a.k.a Venables is back inside for. I'm disappointed that Jack Straw has even agreed to meet her to discuss anything. A.k.a Venables has served the time for that particular crime however short and unsatisfying that was to many, and may or may not be (allegedly) about to stand trial for separate charges. It has nothing to do with the original case, with Denise Fergus, the tabloids, or indeed the millions of people foaming at the mouth about it.

A lawyer friend of mine once said that the law doesn't dispense justice. It can and should only ever be an application of the law. That is sometimes uncomfortable for people, but that is just the way it is.

The law has to be remote, cold and blind: dispassionate, evidence based, process based and as a result, morally neutral. It would be very dangerous for the law to be about who shouts loudest, cries the most or is most hurt or damaged. If that is the case, then the rule of law has been broken and it is not the kind of country I would want to live in.

We may as well text vote on whether someone is guilty or not guilty and do away with juries, judges and the legal process.

:top marksSome very apposite points Blacksaltire but sadly ones all too likely to be easily ignored or overlooked in all this.

The text voting would be a votewinner for any party with the balls to put it forward, maybe not this election but soon enough, I'm sure of that.

There's a future in televising it as a reality gameshow concept: either as a means of deciding who deserves capital punishment ("Strictly Come Hanging"), or for lighter relief, as a means of deciding on early release for high-profile offenders ("I'm A Reformee, Get Me Outta Here!!")

[J-C]

Heard Jack Straw on radio earlier and he said he was remanded because of extremely serious allegations but wouldn't say what due to the fact it may compromise any future trial.

[Dashing Bob S]

The tabloids are whipping up a very dangerous storm here.

Denise Fergus has no right to know what a.k.a Venables is back inside for. I'm disappointed that Jack Straw has even agreed to meet her to discuss anything. A.k.a Venables has served the time for that particular crime however short and unsatisfying that was to many, and may or may not be (allegedly) about to stand trial for separate charges. It has nothing to do with the original case, with Denise Fergus, the tabloids, or indeed the millions of people foaming at the mouth about it.

A lawyer friend of mine once said that the law doesn't dispense justice. It can and should only ever be an application of the law. That is sometimes uncomfortable for people, but that is just the way it is.

The law has to be remote, cold and blind: dispassionate, evidence based, process based and as a result, morally neutral. It would be very dangerous for the law to be about who shouts loudest, cries the most or is most hurt or damaged. If that is the case, then the rule of law has been broken and it is not the kind of country I would want to live in.

We may as well text vote on whether someone is guilty or not guilty and do away with juries, judges and the legal process.


I'm sure that's where the Sun and some of the slavering drones posting on this thread would want us to go. Why replicate the psychotic bloodlust that caused the death of this child in the first place? If you're better than that, then man up and stand above it.

[hibiedude]

Thompson (though the apparent ringleader of the 2 at the time and certainly the one that had the most brutal upbringing) has not been recalled to prison for any breach of his life sentance. Venables has.

Does this mean the experts were right or wrong?

Does Thompson deserve to be recalled as well? Just in case?

Since everything that's happened to these 2 after they were jailed for murder is hidden in secracy who knows what the other one been up to.

Do you know ?

If the allagations prove to be true they should treat him as a 27 year old and not a 10 year and give him the appropriate sentence and if he not guilty then he should be set free to continue his life.

Jack straw could could take the sting out of this story by telling people what Venables is accused off because the courts will decide what action to take.

What's your opinion on the pedo that was jailed for life yesterday how was on the sex offenders register but still managed to Rape Murder a girl that he met on facebook.

Were are those so called experts now.

[Steve-O]

Probably because the internet and x rated films were part of the corruption of his brain at the time, also if he's got a thing about violence towards kids, then supervision on the internet is pretty obvious, just like supervising your own kids.

I also think that most people only want to know what Venables has done to get himself re admitted to jail, if it's something pretty trivial then there wouldn't be an outcry but if it's more severe then most want to know.


On our right to know issue that I posted, well lets say I posted without thinking properly, after reading and thinking I realised I was totally wrong there.:bitchy:

The thing about Child's Play 3 was simply more media hysteria from the back then. There was little or no evidence that either had even seen that movie. I studied a lot on this particular case when I was at uni and looking into film violence and it's effects...there was very little concrete evidence produced to say this film, or any other, had any influence on the behaviour of this pair.

As for the internet, I'm pretty sure they would not have been online in 1993.

Unless they had been convicted of some sort of sex offence at the time then I can completely understand why there would no condition relating to the internet and what was accessed on there.

[Steve-O]

Some interesting stuff there about the press reporting of the case, and also whether Ms Fergus should have been told. It seems that there was a strong possibility that justice would be compromised.

I'm not blaming the woman for feeling as she does about Venables, but it seems to me that if she had the information she would be sharing it with the press. The press of course could act with a bit more responsibility, but we have to live in the real world.

It's important to remember that everyone has a right to a fair trial. A lot of the stuff that's been written has almost read like he has already been convicted. Given the prejudice that has been shown towards Venables, I have to agree with Straw's approach.

No doubt the likes of the Sun would be delighted if their reporting scuppered the guy's trial. It would give them even more sh*t to stir, and pile more misery on those whose lives have been ruined.

I'm not 100% on how it works in the UK, but here in New Zealand if you are recalled then you do NOT have to be convicted of the new charges for the recall to stick. IF the Parole Board believe it is 'reasonable' that you've committed the offences, then they can make the decision to recall, irrespective of any new sentence that the court imposes.

The court may indeed find the person not guilty, however they would still remain in jail because that is what the Parole Board have decided.

[Steve-O]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2884530/Jon-Venables-recognised-by-a-local.html

The story changes YET AGAIN...:blah:

[Steve-O]

What's your opinion on the pedo that was jailed for life yesterday how was on the sex offenders register but still managed to Rape Murder a girl that he met on facebook.

Were are those so called experts now.

According to what I can see, this has nothing do with 'experts' but there was an oversight by Police who did not realise he was no longer at his registered address.

He was out of prison because his sentence had long since ended for his previous offences, nothing to do with 'experts'.

[steakbake]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2884530/Jon-Venables-recognised-by-a-local.html

The story changes YET AGAIN...:blah:

A very interesting development.

[Steve-O]

A very interesting development.

Yes, in as much that the recall has been caused by some 'law abiding citizen' realising who he is and threatening to blow his cover (or worse).

Of course, if the rest of the allegation is true then it's a good thing he was caught, but we've come a long way from the serious assault of a workmate claims that we started with, and indeed there don't now appear to be any allegations of violence at all!

[J-C]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2884530/Jon-Venables-recognised-by-a-local.html (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2884530/Jon-Venables-recognised-by-a-local.html)

The story changes YET AGAIN...:blah:


This is the story I heard yesterday but didn't want to post anything because of heresay and gossip, this may be the serious allegations Jack Straw was alluding to.

[RoslinInstHibby]

just been sent a text with his apparent new name and area he lives in, i really hope that there isn't a person staying there with the name given......

[Phil D. Rolls]

[/B]

I'm sure that's where the Sun and some of the slavering drones posting on this thread would want us to go. Why replicate the psychotic bloodlust that caused the death of this child in the first place? If you're better than that, then man up and stand above it.

That hurts! :boo hoo:


Since everything that's happened to these 2 after they were jailed for murder is hidden in secracy who knows what the other one been up to.

Do you know ?

If the allagations prove to be true they should treat him as a 27 year old and not a 10 year and give him the appropriate sentence and if he not guilty then he should be set free to continue his life.

Jack straw could could take the sting out of this story by telling people what Venables is accused off because the courts will decide what action to take.

What's your opinion on the pedo that was jailed for life yesterday how was on the sex offenders register but still managed to Rape Murder a girl that he met on facebook.

Were are those so called experts now.

I think you have to consider that cases like this are not that common. If they were happening every week, then they wouldn't even make the press. The media are more interested in things that out of the ordinary.



http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2884530/Jon-Venables-recognised-by-a-local.html

The story changes YET AGAIN...:blah:


MORE than 60 per cent of people say Venables doesn't deserve to have his human rights protected, an independent YouGov poll for The Sun revealed.

And more than half of those quizzed said he should be tried under his real name.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2884530/Jon-Venables-recognised-by-a-local.html#ixzz0hh9FQLTY

So after days of hysteria whipped up by the Sun (still deseperately trying to win friends on Merseyside it appears) these far from conclusive figures are the best they can do. It seems like the British public are more open minded than fascists like Murdoch would like them to be.

I'm not commenting on this particular case, rather the broader issues of what people consider to be fair and right. One thing I am having problems with is the original sentence - Denise Fergus has a right to justice. Whether she can ever be considered a fair arbiter of that is not the issue, but I wonder if letting them out at 18 was the best course?

I am not prepared to accept that Venables is guilty of anything until he is tried though. I can see a scenario where, someone found out his identity and fitted him up. Not saying whether or not that's the case, just that it would be better to have the facts before we unleash the lynch mob.

What struck me about the sound bites they got in Bootle last night, was how concrete those people were in their thinking, and how much they wanted to talk about how the murder had affected them. If they are emotionally involved they can't be objective.

[hibiedude]

According to what I can see, this has nothing do with 'experts' but there was an oversight by Police who did not realise he was no longer at his registered address.

He was out of prison because his sentence had long since ended for his previous offences, nothing to do with 'experts'.

He is on the sex offenders register but he moved 9 months ago with no one asking questions about his where abouts.

Who keeps Tabs on the people who are on the Sex offender Register :confused:

the oversight you talk about cost a young girl her life

[Betty Boop]

just been sent a text with his apparent new name and area he lives in, i really hope that there isn't a person staying there with the name given......

There are cases of malicious texting going on up and down the country. Folk devils and moral panic! :bitchy:

[Riordans Boots]

just been sent a text with his apparent new name and area he lives in, i really hope that there isn't a person staying there with the name given......


There are cases of malicious texting going on up and down the country. Folk devils and moral panic! :bitchy:

I just received a text moments ago :bitchy:

[Betty Boop]

I just received a text moments ago :bitchy:

:rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

:rolleyes:

I haven't had a text in ages.

[Steve-O]

He is on the sex offenders register but he moved 9 months ago with no one asking questions about his where abouts.

Who keeps Tabs on the people who are on the Sex offender Register :confused:

the oversight you talk about cost a young girl her life

I told you in the post you quoted - the Police. Not the 'experts' that have been referred to on this thread such as psychologists, Parole Board etc.



There are cases of malicious texting going on up and down the country. Folk devils and moral panic! :bitchy:

Anyone who forwards such a text is an idiot.

[Betty Boop]

Man mistaken for Jon Venables on Facebook fears for safety
David Calvert fears for his life after he was wrongly named as James Bulger's killer on social networking site


Helen Carter
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 9 March 2010 14.12 GMT
Article history


A father of two says he fears for his safety after he was falsely accused on Facebook of being Jon Venables.

By 8am today more than 2,370 people had joined a group on the site asking whether Venables was David Calvert.

The group was removed after complaints to Facebook, but the rumours persist on other sites such as Yahoo Answers, with people claiming to have learned his identity via text messages.

Calvert, who is originally from Liverpool, now lives in Fleetwood, near Blackpool. He was the subject of similar false rumours five years ago and endured a torrent of abuse. He had to produce family photo albums to prove his identity to doubters, and a panic button was installed at his home.

At the time Calvert said he was terrified for his partner and their young sons. "People have been turning up at my neighbours' houses with pictures of the killers printed off the internet, and saying one of them is me. Now I hear that threats are being made and I'm worried that someone will come for me or my girlfriend or hurt my kids," he said. "I'm too scared to go out of the house now. I have these people saying they will get me out no matter what and I'm terrified at what they might do."

He said the trouble started six months earlier when he mentioned to a neighbour that he had served time in a Liverpool prison when he was younger. He had served a four-month prison sentence for fraud.

The justice secretary, Jack Straw, yesterday promised a thorough review of how Venables was supervised in the community before he was recalled to prison over alleged child porn offences.

Lady Butler-Sloss, the former president of the high court's family division, who granted Venables anonymity on his release from prison, stressed "the enormous importance of protecting his anonymity now and if he is released, because those who wanted to kill him in 2001 are likely to be out there now".

[steakbake]

Man mistaken for Jon Venables on Facebook fears for safety
David Calvert fears for his life after he was wrongly named as James Bulger's killer on social networking site


Helen Carter
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 9 March 2010 14.12 GMT
Article history


A father of two says he fears for his safety after he was falsely accused on Facebook of being Jon Venables.

By 8am today more than 2,370 people had joined a group on the site asking whether Venables was David Calvert.

The group was removed after complaints to Facebook, but the rumours persist on other sites such as Yahoo Answers, with people claiming to have learned his identity via text messages.

Calvert, who is originally from Liverpool, now lives in Fleetwood, near Blackpool. He was the subject of similar false rumours five years ago and endured a torrent of abuse. He had to produce family photo albums to prove his identity to doubters, and a panic button was installed at his home.

At the time Calvert said he was terrified for his partner and their young sons. "People have been turning up at my neighbours' houses with pictures of the killers printed off the internet, and saying one of them is me. Now I hear that threats are being made and I'm worried that someone will come for me or my girlfriend or hurt my kids," he said. "I'm too scared to go out of the house now. I have these people saying they will get me out no matter what and I'm terrified at what they might do."

He said the trouble started six months earlier when he mentioned to a neighbour that he had served time in a Liverpool prison when he was younger. He had served a four-month prison sentence for fraud.

The justice secretary, Jack Straw, yesterday promised a thorough review of how Venables was supervised in the community before he was recalled to prison over alleged child porn offences.

Lady Butler-Sloss, the former president of the high court's family division, who granted Venables anonymity on his release from prison, stressed "the enormous importance of protecting his anonymity now and if he is released, because those who wanted to kill him in 2001 are likely to be out there now".

It makes me despair, to be honest. I've got friends on facebook who have joined "justice for james" kinds of groups. I'm surprised at them - I thought they might be more discerning.

[RoslinInstHibby]

I told you in the post you quoted - the Police. Not the 'experts' that have been referred to on this thread such as psychologists, Parole Board etc.




Anyone who forwards such a text is an idiot.

:agree:

[Betty Boop]

It makes me despair, to be honest. I've got friends on facebook who have joined "justice for james" kinds of groups. I'm surprised at them - I thought they might be more discerning.

Very sad! The gutter press are whipping people up into a frenzy.

[CropleyWasGod]

Just to add something to the debate, this was tucked away on Page 9 of The Scotsman today.

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Psychiatrist-report-said-James-Bulger.6137793.jp

I have looked and looked, but don't see this in The Sun. :rolleyes:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Just to add something to the debate, this was tucked away on Page 9 of The Scotsman today.

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Psychiatrist-report-said-James-Bulger.6137793.jp

I have looked and looked, but don't see this in The Sun. :rolleyes:

Yes, but who do you trust.:cool2:

[Steve-O]

Just to add something to the debate, this was tucked away on Page 9 of The Scotsman today.

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Psychiatrist-report-said-James-Bulger.6137793.jp

I have looked and looked, but don't see this in The Sun. :rolleyes:

Finally some truth in this matter!

The fact of the matter is, he's gone 9 years without any offence worthy of recall, so he has done pretty well IMO. If the child porn rumour is true, of course it's not good at all, but the question of whether he is an 'undue risk' to the public still has to be asked?

[hibiedude]

Finally some truth in this matter!

The fact of the matter is, he's gone 9 years without any offence worthy of recall, so he has done pretty well IMO. If the child porn rumour is true, of course it's not good at all, but the question of whether he is an 'undue risk' to the public still has to be asked?


The report was Prepared in 2000 or have I read it wrong

Experts don't always get it right read the story of the British Josef Fritzl a shocking failure of the system.

[CropleyWasGod]

The report was Prepared in 2000 or have I read it wrong

Experts don't always get it right read the story of the British Josef Fritzl a shocking failure of the system.

You've read it correctly.

"the risks to the public are so trivial that, strictly in relation to that perspective, immediate release would be justified".

Thus far, this expert has got it right.

[Riordans Boots]

You've read it correctly.

"the risks to the public are so trivial that, strictly in relation to that perspective, immediate release would be justified".

Thus far, this expert has got it right.

What is the public risk to him - if his new identity was to get out??

[CropleyWasGod]

What is the public risk to him - if his new identity was to get out??

I'd give him a week.

[Riordans Boots]

I'd give him a week.

Safer inside then - for all :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

Safer inside then - for all :agree:

Can't say I agree.

He has lasted 9 years without being outed. If one believes The Sun :rolleyes:, he is closely monitored in terms of his anonymity. There's no reason why, if he lives a clean life, that couldn't go on.

[Leicester Fan]

Man mistaken for Jon Venables on Facebook fears for safety
David Calvert fears for his life after he was wrongly named as James Bulger's killer on social networking site


Helen Carter
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 9 March 2010 14.12 GMT
Article history


A father of two says he fears for his safety after he was falsely accused on Facebook of being Jon Venables.

By 8am today more than 2,370 people had joined a group on the site asking whether Venables was David Calvert.

The group was removed after complaints to Facebook, but the rumours persist on other sites such as Yahoo Answers, with people claiming to have learned his identity via text messages.

Calvert, who is originally from Liverpool, now lives in Fleetwood, near Blackpool. He was the subject of similar false rumours five years ago and endured a torrent of abuse. He had to produce family photo albums to prove his identity to doubters, and a panic button was installed at his home.

At the time Calvert said he was terrified for his partner and their young sons. "People have been turning up at my neighbours' houses with pictures of the killers printed off the internet, and saying one of them is me. Now I hear that threats are being made and I'm worried that someone will come for me or my girlfriend or hurt my kids," he said. "I'm too scared to go out of the house now. I have these people saying they will get me out no matter what and I'm terrified at what they might do."

He said the trouble started six months earlier when he mentioned to a neighbour that he had served time in a Liverpool prison when he was younger. He had served a four-month prison sentence for fraud.

The justice secretary, Jack Straw, yesterday promised a thorough review of how Venables was supervised in the community before he was recalled to prison over alleged child porn offences.

Lady Butler-Sloss, the former president of the high court's family division, who granted Venables anonymity on his release from prison, stressed "the enormous importance of protecting his anonymity now and if he is released, because those who wanted to kill him in 2001 are likely to be out there now".

This man was on Radio2 today. Apparently he's been threatened even though it's been widely reported that Venables is in jail. There are some real thick f88kers around.

[Phil D. Rolls]

This man was on Radio2 today. Apparently he's been threatened even though it's been widely reported that Venables is in jail. There are some real thick f88kers around.

Like the mob that went and tried to torch a guy's house after they heard he was a paediatrician? :brickwall:

[Darth Hibbie]

I told you in the post you quoted - the Police. Not the 'experts' that have been referred to on this thread such as psychologists, Parole Board etc.

It a combination of the police and other agencies such as Social work and NHS. The police will be required to visit them at certain intervals based on the risk of re-offending set by the various agencies



who forwards such a text is an idiot.

:agree:

These texts and emails are nothing more than spam

[Phil D. Rolls]

It a combination of the police and other agencies such as Social work and NHS. The police will be required to visit them at certain intervals based on the risk of re-offending set by the various agencies




:agree:

These texts and emails are nothing more than spam

Are you sure the NHS has a part to play?

[Darth Hibbie]

Are you sure the NHS has a part to play?

Yeah depending on circumstances of the persons offence and release they can be involved in the risk assessment and certainly part of the observation role afterwards.

[--------]

This is a genuine question, but it's bothering me, and I do think that the answer's relevant here.

How long was Denise Bulger in that shop shopping, leaving her two-year-old outside the shop on his own?

Anyone know? Because when my son was that age, and I had him out with me, I didn't take my ey off him for a millisecond.

[J-C]

This is a genuine question, but it's bothering me, and I do think that the answer's relevant here.

How long was Denise Bulger in that shop shopping, leaving her two-year-old outside the shop on his own?

Anyone know? Because when my son was that age, and I had him out with me, I didn't take my ey off him for a millisecond.


I posted this earlier in the thread Doddie

http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html (http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html)

[--------]

I posted this earlier in the thread Doddie

http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html (http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html)


Thanks. A 'few seconds' it was NOT.

When I brought my son - then NINE years old - to ER for his first football match, my wife insisted I get a second adult to come with us.

This so that if I were distracted for a moment, my mate Brian would be there to watch the sprog. If one of us had to go to the loo, the other was there to watch the sprog. When I was paying at the turnstile, Brian had the sprog. In the stadium, Brian and I stood behind him, with him right down at the wall beside the track. We never took the eye off him. More than our lives were worth.

"Anything happens to the wee P and J - don't bother coming home," SWMBO said - and meant it.

That was the rule for all that kid's young life. He's 30 now, and maybe he's reached that age partly because we were so careful when he was a kid. there are places you just don't leave a child alone, and a shopping-mall in Liverpool is surely one of them.

This isn't a world where you can leave the innocent, the weak or the vulnerable ones alone. God knows she paid a price, but still...

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yeah depending on circumstances of the persons offence and release they can be involved in the risk assessment and certainly part of the observation role afterwards.

Thanks, I wasn't too sure myself.

[Steve-O]

The report was Prepared in 2000 or have I read it wrong

Experts don't always get it right read the story of the British Josef Fritzl a shocking failure of the system.

I know that. So the report advised it was safe to let them out? In Thompson's case it would appear that is 100% correct, and in Venables case it took 10 years for anything to happen.

Not a bad effort from the 'experts' there no?

[hibiedude]

I know that. So the report advised it was safe to let them out? In Thompson's case it would appear that is 100% correct, and in Venables case it took 10 years for anything to happen.

Not a bad effort from the 'experts' there no?

Everything about Thompson/venables is hidden in secrecy unless you know for a fact that Thompson has not re-offended then I would say the experts got it right with HIM’ but you can’t
The home office only came out with the information regarding venables being back under lock and key because the newspapers were about to print the story on the Thursday. So the home office goes in spin control giving the impression they knew all about venables alleged new offences.

I Have never at any time said that there is not some top notch experts in there field who do a superb job but lets be honest’ there are a lot of poor so called experts who haven’t a clue and when they make mistakes someone dies unlike if you or I made a mistake were someone mite lose there tea break.

The guy who abused his family for 30 years even though his daughters were on the at risk register your not telling that he beat the system because he moved 60+ times.

[Steve-O]

Everything about Thompson/venables is hidden in secrecy unless you know for a fact that Thompson has not re-offended then I would say the experts got it right with HIM’ but you can’t
The home office only came out with the information regarding venables being back under lock and key because the newspapers were about to print the story on the Thursday. So the home office goes in spin control giving the impression they knew all about venables alleged new offences.

I Have never at any time said that there is not some top notch experts in there field who do a superb job but lets be honest’ there are a lot of poor so called experts who haven’t a clue and when they make mistakes someone dies unlike if you or I made a mistake were someone mite lose there tea break.

The guy who abused his family for 30 years even though his daughters were on the at risk register your not telling that he beat the system because he moved 60+ times.

If Thompson had reoffended, he'd have been recalled, end of story. Perhaps he has been and we've never heard about it, however I find that scenario very unlikely.

I'm not sure how you get that there are "a lot" of poor experts out there, or where you get the idea that there is no punishment when mistakes are made?

I don't know about the case you are on about, so I can't comment.

[J-C]

If Thompson had reoffended, he'd have been recalled, end of story. Perhaps he has been and we've never heard about it, however I find that scenario very unlikely.

I'm not sure how you get that there are "a lot" of poor experts out there, or where you get the idea that there is no punishment when mistakes are made?

I don't know about the case you are on about, so I can't comment.


It does say on the previous link I gave that Thompson was sort of bossed by Venables and did everything he was told to do, so maybe there is the reason he hasn't re offended. Venables seems to be the ring leader in all this, with Thompson probably scared of him at the time and just did as he was told, or else.

[hibiedude]

If Thompson had reoffended, he'd have been recalled, end of story. Perhaps he has been and we've never heard about it, however I find that scenario very unlikely.

I'm not sure how you get that there are "a lot" of poor experts out there, or where you get the idea that there is no punishment when mistakes are made?

I don't know about the case you are on about, so I can't comment.

The case I refer too is the guy who abused his daughters for years and had 8-9 incest kids with then even though they were on the at risk register.

Social workers up and down the country have been apologizing all week through the media all week.

And show me were I said there is no punishment when mistakes are made.

And the poor experts I talk about are the ones that have been sacked or are under investagation Karen shoesmith who was the supervisor in charge of Baby Peter springs to mind.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The case I refer too is the guy who abused his daughters for years and had 8-9 incest kids with then even though they were on the at risk register.

Social workers up and down the country have been apologizing all week through the media all week.

And show me were I said there is no punishment when mistakes are made.

And the poor experts I talk about are the ones that have been sacked or are under investagation Karen shoesmith who was the supervisor in charge of Baby Peter springs to mind.

I think we are too quick to criticise social workers. If we were truly concerned we'd address the fact that they are under resourced - mistakes are bound to happen. Maybe we need to hear their side and recognise that those people probably care more about these issues than most, that's why they do the job.

I have yet to hear of a social worker abusing or starving a child to death. Yet they seem to get equal billing when blame is being handed out.

[hibiedude]

I think we are too quick to criticise social workers. If we were truly concerned we'd address the fact that they are under resourced - mistakes are bound to happen. Maybe we need to hear their side and recognise that those people probably care more about these issues than most, that's why they do the job.

I have yet to hear of a social worker abusing or starving a child to death. Yet they seem to get equal billing when blame is being handed out.

Fair point but when mistakes are made in there profession young kids suffer' its not a job I would take on and respect to the people who do this difficult and thankless job.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Fair point but when mistakes are made in there profession young kids suffer' its not a job I would take on and respect to the people who do this difficult and thankless job.

I'm sure they live with that pressure daily. Knowing the consequences of a mistake must make it difficult, and Im sure they suffer more than most when it actually happens.

They get it from all sides. You have to question the morality of those in politics who make great capital out of these tragedies, yet keep ramping up the pressure on those in the front line.

[Steve-O]

The case I refer too is the guy who abused his daughters for years and had 8-9 incest kids with then even though they were on the at risk register.

Social workers up and down the country have been apologizing all week through the media all week.

And show me were I said there is no punishment when mistakes are made.

And the poor experts I talk about are the ones that have been sacked or are under investagation Karen shoesmith who was the supervisor in charge of Baby Peter springs to mind.

You are talking about Social Workers here though, they are completely different to the people who are dealing with Thompson and Venables?

---------- Post added at 02:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ----------


It does say on the previous link I gave that Thompson was sort of bossed by Venables and did everything he was told to do, so maybe there is the reason he hasn't re offended. Venables seems to be the ring leader in all this, with Thompson probably scared of him at the time and just did as he was told, or else.

I think it's the other way round isn't it?

Thompson was identified as the ringleader in 1993.

[Steve-O]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/James-Bulger-Mother-Slams-Childrens-Commissioner-For-Remarks-Describing-Killing-As-Unpleasant/Article/201003215572987?f=rss

This is getting embarrassing.

Denise Fergus should concentrate on her new life instead of getting involved in all this nonsense. Someone should really have a word with her to be honest.

To say that this person should be sacked is completely an utterly ludicrous, she hasn't even done anything wrong!!!

[hibiedude]

[QUOTE=Steve-O;2386749]You are talking about Social Workers here though, they are completely different to the people who are dealing with Thompson and Venables?[COLOR="Silver"]

Are we not talking about expert in there field so social workers are supposed to be just that EXPERTS no ?

The people who were meant to be watching Thompson and Venables are probation officers one signed to each of them. yet the only reason Venables was recalled is the media were about to break the story off new alleged offences.

doesn’t sound like the probation officers knew much about what venables was up to because why wait before recalling him because his alleged offences went back MONTHS.

News this morning if true is Jack Straw wants Jon Venables to be dealt with by parole chiefs because to put him threw a criminal trial his new identity would be known.

If venables is guilty of the charges that’s been made against him then there should be a criminal trial or does he have a get out of jail card for LIFE.

You mention someone should have a word with Denise Fergus because she asked for senior government adviser to be sacked after she described the toddler's killing as "exceptionally unpleasant" This is how out of touch Maggie Atkinson is Suspend or garden leave Atkinson forthwith pending dismissal lets hope this never happens to you but until you lose a son in the manner she lost heir’s and have it all brought up 10 years later she is entitled to have her say.

It was mentioned that Venables has kept out of trouble for 10 years but Denise Fergus has kept a dignified silence all those years she never asked for all this nonsense to be dug up again.

[Steve-O]

You are talking about Social Workers here though, they are completely different to the people who are dealing with Thompson and Venables?[COLOR="Silver"]

Are we not talking about expert in there field so social workers are supposed to be just that EXPERTS no ?

The people who were meant to be watching Thompson and Venables are probation officers one signed to each of them. yet the only reason Venables was recalled is the media were about to break the story off new alleged offences.

doesn’t sound like the probation officers knew much about what venables was up to because why wait before recalling him because his alleged offences went back MONTHS.

News this morning if true is Jack Straw wants Jon Venables to be dealt with by parole chiefs because to put him threw a criminal trial his new identity would be known.

If venables is guilty of the charges that’s been made against him then there should be a criminal trial or does he have a get out of jail card for LIFE.

You mention someone should have a word with Denise Fergus because she asked for senior government adviser to be sacked after she described the toddler's killing as "exceptionally unpleasant" This is how out of touch Maggie Atkinson is Suspend or garden leave Atkinson forthwith pending dismissal lets hope this never happens to you but until you lose a son in the manner she lost heir’s and have it all brought up 10 years later she is entitled to have her say.

It was mentioned that Venables has kept out of trouble for 10 years but Denise Fergus has kept a dignified silence all those years she never asked for all this nonsense to be dug up again.

Dignified silence? It wasn't that long ago she was talking about tracking Thompson down?

It's the media who have exposed her to all of this 13 years later, the same media she seems to provide a quote/interview to on almost a daily basis now.

As for 'exceptionally unpleasant' - what is wrong with that?? I just can't see what is wrong with that at all to be honest, and calling on someone to be sacked for saying it is just completely nuts. Denise Fergus has lost all perspective on the issue.

Everything else you are saying about Venables is not even proven at this time, so there is no point in commenting to be honest.

If the Parole Board deal with Venables and find him guilty of whatever these offences are, then he will be recalled to prison anyway, where he will begin serving a life sentence...what difference will a criminal trial make?

[lapsedhibee]

As for 'exceptionally unpleasant' - what is wrong with that?? I just can't see what is wrong with that at all to be honest
Think probably the absence of "evil" and "pure" in the phrase. :wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/James-Bulger-Mother-Slams-Childrens-Commissioner-For-Remarks-Describing-Killing-As-Unpleasant/Article/201003215572987?f=rss

This is getting embarrassing.

Denise Fergus should concentrate on her new life instead of getting involved in all this nonsense. Someone should really have a word with her to be honest.

To say that this person should be sacked is completely an utterly ludicrous, she hasn't even done anything wrong!!!

The woman needs to be careful who she trusts. It can't be long before the media turn the spot light on her, like they did with the McCanns.


You mention someone should have a word with Denise Fergus because she asked for senior government adviser to be sacked after she described the toddler's killing as "exceptionally unpleasant" This is how out of touch Maggie Atkinson is Suspend or garden leave Atkinson forthwith pending dismissal lets hope this never happens to you but until you lose a son in the manner she lost heir’s and have it all brought up 10 years later she is entitled to have her say.

It was mentioned that Venables has kept out of trouble for 10 years but Denise Fergus has kept a dignified silence all those years she never asked for all this nonsense to be dug up again.

I think we are all affected deeply by what happens to James, and I'm sure most of us will have considered how we would feel if it was our child. Denise may have kept a dignified silence all these years, she may not.

For all we know the only reason we haven't heard anything about her is because no one was listening. At the moment though, she is getting herself into things that she is ignorant about.

She is lapping up the victim role, and seems to have vested some form of sainthood in herself - thinking because she has been through a horrible experience she can say what she wants.

It's a sign of her chippiness that she is now wading in and making criticisms of people going about their job. She seems to be the one who is twisting the words. She criticises people who have spent a lifetime dealing with criminal justice in children using her degree from the University of Denise.

(I have two grown up children, and would never be able to talk sense again if something happened to them. I'd be bitter and hateful, and it would drive me insane.)

[J-C]

---------- Post added at 02:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ----------



I think it's the other way round isn't it?

Thompson was identified as the ringleader in 1993.


After re reading it, I think it looks like they were as bad as each other, both blaming the other, also both lying as they spoke to people during the abduction.

[Phil D. Rolls]

After re reading it, I think it looks like they were as bad as each other, both blaming the other, also both lying as they spoke to people during the abduction.

They sound like a couple of wee boys.

[Betty Boop]

They sound like a couple of wee boys.

Exactly! :agree:

[J-C]

They sound like a couple of wee boys.


A couple of wee boys who after 2 or 3 attempts that same day to take a child, finally took young James and thereafter kicked, beat and tortured him and left him for dead on a railway line...............Ye just a couple of wee scamps.:confused:

[McIntosh]

Dr Atkinson's Comment are completely valid, while children at ten in England and eight in Scotland legally are criminally 'responsible' this does not mean that this responsibility is equally matched by cognitive understanding.

In respect to Denise Fergus her comments are completely unacceptable -she is wrong while I can understand her bitterness and grief it does not mean that for one moment fair and rational debate must be lost within it.

In my opinion Fergus has projected her anger, pain and remorse into her hatred for T & V this is understandable because her own mistakes left her child vulnerable. This is not a condemnation or a judgement but an observation, that her loss is exacerbated by a possible deep regret concerning her own actions or inactions on that fateful day it does explain her understandable but irrational behaviour.

[McIntosh]

A couple of wee boys who after 2 or 3 attempts that same day to take a child, finally took young James and thereafter kicked, beat and tortured him and left him for dead on a railway line...............Ye just a couple of wee scamps.:confused:

Children like their adult counter-parts can be incrediably cruel. I was once standing outside a shop when a boy of about six thought it would be great fun to stand on the spine of a young pup. I spoke to the boy and told him to stop at which point his father came out "to have a word with me" when I told him what had happened he decided to beat the boy. At that point I knew where that boy's particular brand of cruely originated from!

[J-C]

Children like their adult counter-parts can be incrediably cruel. I was once standing outside a shop when a boy of about six thought it would be great fun to stand on the spine of a young pup. I spoke to the boy and told him to stop at which point his father came out "to have a word with me" when I told him what had happened he decided to beat the boy. At that point I knew where that boy's particular brand of cruely originated from!


There's a difference between a 6 yr old not understanding the cruelty he's causing and two 10 yr olds, going out of their way to hand pick a victim and then deliberately torturing said victim, while lying to people at the same time, I'd call this pre meditated.

[ArabHibee]

A couple of wee boys who after 2 or 3 attempts that same day to take a child, finally took young James and thereafter kicked, beat and tortured him and left him for dead on a railway line...............Ye just a couple of wee scamps.:confused:

The bit in bold is a wee bit wrong. They dragged him onto a railway line hoping that a train would run over him so that it looked like an accident.
But remember, they were only wee laddies, and didn't know what they were doing.

:rolleyes:

[EuanH78]

There's a difference between a 6 yr old not understanding the cruelty he's causing and two 10 yr olds, going out of their way to hand pick a victim and then deliberately torturing said victim, while lying to people at the same time, I'd call this pre meditated.

Hypothetical scenario for you to consider, I'll warn that it may be distasteful to people.

James Bulger by some miracle, survives his ordeal and is deeply scarred, emotionally and physically. Of course in this scenario we see only a fraction of the media coverage and he is not a household name and soon forgotten about.

His support network is inadequate and the horror of what has happened to him is too much for him to cognitively process, in turn, he himself commits a horror crime at ten years old which is widely reported by the media, who call him a monster, pure evil etc...

How do you feel about him in this scenario?

[EuanH78]

A couple of wee boys who after 2 or 3 attempts that same day to take a child, finally took young James and thereafter kicked, beat and tortured him and left him for dead on a railway line...............Ye just a couple of wee scamps.:confused:

Oh and in the interest of facts, it was 1 previous attempt to take a child.

[Allant1981]

Oh and in the interest of facts, it was 1 previous attempt to take a child.


So that makes it better does it, 1 previous attempt to many

[EuanH78]

So that makes it better does it, 1 previous attempt to many

No it doesn't, but if you like we can not bother with actual facts and just make up any pejorative statements we like, how about that?

[J-C]

Oh and in the interest of facts, it was 1 previous attempt to take a child.


Re read it and it was only one, must've read the same bit twice, still wrong to do so though.

---------- Post added at 09:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------


The bit in bold is a wee bit wrong. They dragged him onto a railway line hoping that a train would run over him so that it looked like an accident.
But remember, they were only wee laddies, and didn't know what they were doing.

:rolleyes:

How is it a wee bit wrong......


The boys took Bulger on a 2.5-mile (4.0 km) walk across Liverpool, leading him to a canal where he sustained injuries to his head and face.[3] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-odnb-2) During the walk, the boys were seen by 38 people.[12] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-trutv_6-11) Bulger was clearly distressed, but most bystanders did nothing to intervene, assuming that he was a younger brother.[3] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-odnb-2) Two people challenged the older boys, but they claimed that Bulger was a younger brother or that he was lost and they were taking him to the local police station.[13] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-thetimes-12) Eventually the boys led Bulger to a railway line near the disused Walton & Anfield railway station (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Walton_%26_Anfield_railway_station), close to Walton Lane police station and Anfield Cemetery (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Anfield_Cemetery), where they attacked him.[3] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-odnb-2)
At the trial it was established that at this location, one of the boys threw blue Humbrol modelling paint into Bulger's left eye.[7] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-blue_paint-6) They kicked him and hit him with bricks, stones and a 22-pound (10.0 kg) iron bar, described in court as a railway fishplate (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Fishplate).[14] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-pathologist2-13)[15] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-guardian_murder-14)[16] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-guardian2-15) They placed batteries in his mouth.[17] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-bulger_murder-16) Bulger suffered skull fractures (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Skull_fracture) as a result of the iron bar striking his head. Alan Williams, the case's pathologist, speculated that Bulger suffered so many injuries that none could be isolated as the fatal blow.[18] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-fractures-17) Police suspected that there was a sexual element to the crime, since Bulger's shoes, stockings, trousers and underpants had been removed. The pathologist's report read out in court stated that Bulger's foreskin had been manipulated.[19] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-pathologist-18)[14] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-pathologist2-13) When questioned about this aspect of the attack by detectives and the child psychiatrist Eileen Vizard, Thompson and Venables were reluctant to give details.[20] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-trutv_5-19)[12] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-trutv_6-11)
Before they left him, the boys laid Bulger across the railway tracks and weighted his head down with rubble, in the hope that a train would hit him and make his death appear to be an accident. After Bulger's killers left the scene, his body was cut in half by a train.[21] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-Sharratt-20) Bulger's severed body was discovered two days later, on 14 February.[3] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-odnb-2) A forensic pathologist (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Forensic_pathologist) testified that he had died before he was struck by the train.[21 (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-Sharratt-20)

[EuanH78]

Re read it and it was only one, must've read the same bit twice, still wrong to do so though.

---------- Post added at 09:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------



How is it a wee bit wrong......


The boys took Bulger on a 2.5-mile (4.0 km) walk across Liverpool, leading him to a canal where he sustained injuries to his head and face.[3] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-odnb-2) During the walk, the boys were seen by 38 people.[12] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-trutv_6-11) Bulger was clearly distressed, but most bystanders did nothing to intervene, assuming that he was a younger brother.[3] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-odnb-2) Two people challenged the older boys, but they claimed that Bulger was a younger brother or that he was lost and they were taking him to the local police station.[13] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-thetimes-12) Eventually the boys led Bulger to a railway line near the disused Walton & Anfield railway station (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Walton_%26_Anfield_railway_station), close to Walton Lane police station and Anfield Cemetery (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Anfield_Cemetery), where they attacked him.[3] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-odnb-2)
At the trial it was established that at this location, one of the boys threw blue Humbrol modelling paint into Bulger's left eye.[7] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-blue_paint-6) They kicked him and hit him with bricks, stones and a 22-pound (10.0 kg) iron bar, described in court as a railway fishplate (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Fishplate).[14] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-pathologist2-13)[15] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-guardian_murder-14)[16] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-guardian2-15) They placed batteries in his mouth.[17] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-bulger_murder-16) Bulger suffered skull fractures (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Skull_fracture) as a result of the iron bar striking his head. Alan Williams, the case's pathologist, speculated that Bulger suffered so many injuries that none could be isolated as the fatal blow.[18] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-fractures-17) Police suspected that there was a sexual element to the crime, since Bulger's shoes, stockings, trousers and underpants had been removed. The pathologist's report read out in court stated that Bulger's foreskin had been manipulated.[19] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-pathologist-18)[14] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-pathologist2-13) When questioned about this aspect of the attack by detectives and the child psychiatrist Eileen Vizard, Thompson and Venables were reluctant to give details.[20] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-trutv_5-19)[12] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-trutv_6-11)
Before they left him, the boys laid Bulger across the railway tracks and weighted his head down with rubble, in the hope that a train would hit him and make his death appear to be an accident. After Bulger's killers left the scene, his body was cut in half by a train.[21] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-Sharratt-20) Bulger's severed body was discovered two days later, on 14 February.[3] (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-odnb-2) A forensic pathologist (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Forensic_pathologist) testified that he had died before he was struck by the train.[21 (http://www.hibs.net/message/#cite_note-Sharratt-20)

He had already died before they put him on the tracks.

[J-C]

He had already died before they put him on the tracks.


Whether he was dead before he was put on the track is irrelevant, they still put him there to make it look like an accident, this was my point originally, no need to nitpick, I said left him for dead on the railway, sorry I didn't say left him after he was dead.

[ArabHibee]

How is it a wee bit wrong......


JC, you've taken what I've said the wrong way, I was agreeing with you! The point I was trying to make was that they didn't just torture and beat the wee lad to death and think "FFS, we'd better scarper coz he's dead/nearly dead", they thought it would be better to drag him onto the railway so that it would like like an accident. Calculated in my opinion.

---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 PM ----------


He had already died before they put him on the tracks.

Seeing as you want to have all the facts right on this thread, can you please tell me your source on the above?

[J-C]

JC, you've taken what I've said the wrong way, I was agreeing with you! The point I was trying to make was that they didn't just torture and beat the wee lad to death and think "FFS, we'd better scarper coz he's dead/nearly dead", they thought it would be better to drag him onto the railway so that it would like like an accident. Calculated in my opinion.

---------- Post added at 10:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 PM ----------



Seeing as you want to have all the facts right on this thread, can you please tell me your source on the above?


Sorry didn't realise that.

I think in my post from the Wiki page, they didn't know what the fatal blow was but it doesn't say he was dead before he was put on the line, so he could easily have been dying as he laid there.