Bulger’s killer ‘is exposed’

[SteveHFC]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3561803/Photos-said-to-expose-the-new-identity-of-James-Bulgers-killer-Jon-Venables-are-being-spread-on-the-internet.html

[McHibby]

Whilst I thought it was probably the right thing to do to protect both of their identities when they they were released from prison, now that he's committed a very serious (and disgusting) crime as an adult I finding myself thinking he doesn't deserve this kind of protection any longer. The other guy by all accounts has used his second chance well, has joined the army and serves/served in Afghanistan, but this one shouldn't even be getting released for a second time in my opinion. I thought that if you were freed under license and commit another offence then you're meant to serve the remainder of the original sentence plus any time for the offence you were recalled for - is that right? So surely he should be inside for life now?

[ArabHibee]

Whilst I thought it was probably the right thing to do to protect both of their identities when they they were released from prison, now that he's committed a very serious (and disgusting) crime as an adult I finding myself thinking he doesn't deserve this kind of protection any longer. The other guy by all accounts has used his second chance well, has joined the army and serves/served in Afghanistan, but this one shouldn't even be getting released for a second time in my opinion. I thought that if you were freed under license and commit another offence then you're meant to serve the remainder of the original sentence plus any time for the offence you were recalled for - is that right? So surely he should be inside for life now?
I'm not 100% on this but I'm sure the 2 of them were only sentenced to 8 years, not life. So when their 8 years was up, they were released on licence and if they committed another crime they would immediately be pulled back into jail until the trial and verdict, rather than being charged and let out on bail.
<p>&nbsp;</p>

[bighairyfaeleith]

I'm a bit weary of all this witch hunt that always goes on in regards to the bulger killers, I mean don't get me wrong they should have hanged for what they did, but the fact is they didn't and we have to respect the laws of our land and accept that there punishment has been handed out, and if they commit another crime then again they will be punished by the law. Releasing the pictures I think will only further cause this guy to become more and more on the fringes of society and make any chance of him being normal less likely.

However, if any bstard went near my kids I probably wouldn't wait for the law to act so I can understand why people get so angry on this one.

[Sylar]

I'm a bit weary of all this witch hunt that always goes on in regards to the bulger killers, I mean don't get me wrong they should have hanged for what they did, but the fact is they didn't and we have to respect the laws of our land and accept that there punishment has been handed out, and if they commit another crime then again they will be punished by the law. Releasing the pictures I think will only further cause this guy to become more and more on the fringes of society and make any chance of him being normal less likely.

However, if any bstard went near my kids I probably wouldn't wait for the law to act so I can understand why people get so angry on this one.

I actually found myself thinking something similar when I was reading that "article".

The language used by the "journalist" is so hateful that you almost get the impression that they wouldn't be happy until he's hauled to the gallows.

There's utterly no disputing that the 2 of them committed an act of heinous evil (and that there are varying opinions on the suitability of such protection of their new ID's) but regardless, the consistent hounding of this pair and the Sun's yanking on the leash to expose them is beyond news-worthy now.

It'll be interesting to see if he can keep out of prison once released - some people who start custodial sentences early enough (especially those who have been exposed to a precarious domestic upbringing) become so institutionalised, that they will spend the rest of their life in and out of prison, or eventually end up topping themselves.

[Sir David Gray]

I'm a bit weary of all this witch hunt that always goes on in regards to the bulger killers, I mean don't get me wrong they should have hanged for what they did, but the fact is they didn't and we have to respect the laws of our land and accept that there punishment has been handed out, and if they commit another crime then again they will be punished by the law. Releasing the pictures I think will only further cause this guy to become more and more on the fringes of society and make any chance of him being normal less likely.
However, if any bstard went near my kids I probably wouldn't wait for the law to act so I can understand why people get so angry on this one.

I would suggest that someone who has taken part in the mutilation, torture, humiliation and brutal murder of a defenceless toddler and who clearly gets gratification from viewing sickening images of young children being sexually molested will never be "normal".

I accept that Jon Venables (and Robert Thompson) may not have had a great upbringing themselves and that may go some way in explaining how they've turned out (I'll let psychologists comment on that one) but the most important thing that the law should be doing is protecting the majority of law abiding people from people like Venables and Thompson.

No-one should ever be given a secret identity because I do not believe that it is sustainable and these two should have never been released.

If someone has done something so terrible that the general public can't be trusted not to go looking for them to attack them on their release from prison, then I would suggest that people like this should be imprisoned indefinitely.

As it happens, now that they have both been given new identities and, in a few months, both will be out on the streets once again, I hope they aren't exposed because someone would almost certainly go looking for them and would probably kill them. Even although nearly 20 years have past since James Bulger was murdered, there is still an awful lot of raw feelings towards the pair of them.

The law has decided that they were fit to be released and I don't think it would be at all helpful if someone did carry out a vigilante attack.

[Dinkydoo]

I would suggest that someone who has taken part in the mutilation, torture, humiliation and brutal murder of a defenceless toddler and who clearly gets gratification from viewing sickening images of young children being sexually molested will never be "normal".

I accept that Jon Venables (and Robert Thompson) may not have had a great upbringing themselves and that may go some way in explaining how they've turned out (I'll let psychologists comment on that one) but the most important thing that the law should be doing is protecting the majority of law abiding people from people like Venables and Thompson.

No-one should ever be given a secret identity because I do not believe that it is sustainable and these two should have never been released.

If someone has done something so terrible that the general public can't be trusted not to go looking for them to attack them on their release from prison, then I would suggest that people like this should be imprisoned indefinitely.

As it happens, now that they have both been given new identities and, in a few months, both will be out on the streets once again, I hope they aren't exposed because someone would almost certainly go looking for them and would probably kill them. Even although nearly 20 years have past since James Bulger was murdered, there is still an awful lot of raw feelings towards the pair of them.

The law has decided that they were fit to be released and I don't think it would be at all helpful if someone did carry out a vigilante attack.

Disagree with that bit.

The whole point in having punishments (other than the death penalty) is to give people time to reflect on what they have done, consider the consequences and change themselves, for the better.

Now whilst this all but certainley doesn't happen in every case, you cannot deny one person the right to be able to live a normal life just because the public still hate them.

Now that Jon Venables' other issues (like the child pornography thing) have come to light then I would be inclined the agree ever so slightly with you in the sense that if people do not show signs of improvement or show any remorse for what they have done, then generally speaking they probably aren't safe to be released back into the wild - but you cannot make that decision simply on the basis of the public not being able to get over an (albeit very, very sickening) incident that happened years ago.

[Sir David Gray]

Disagree with that bit.

The whole point in having punishments (other than the death penalty) is to give people time to reflect on what they have done, consider the consequences and change themselves, for the better.

Now whilst this all but certainley doesn't happen in every case, you cannot deny one person the right to be able to live a normal life just because the public still hate them.

Now that Jon Venables' other issues (like the child pornography thing) have come to light then I would be inclined the agree ever so slightly with you in the sense that if people do not show signs of improvement or show any remorse for what they have done, then generally speaking they probably aren't safe to be released back into the wild - but you cannot make that decision simply on the basis of the public not being able to get over an (albeit very, very sickening) incident that happened years ago.

As I said earlier, I'll let the psychologists and the experts make the decisions on whether people really pose a risk to society.

However, my own personal view is that I am extremely sceptical of any claim that tries to suggest that people who commit heinous crimes, particularly those of a sexual nature against children, are capable of changing for good.

We're not just talking here about a couple of "Jack the lads" in their late teens having sex with a 14-15 year old girl. We're talking about a couple of boys who, even early on in life, clearly had a deep fascination with the sexual torture of young children. Venables was apparently found with images on his computer of the most serious nature on the child pornography scale

If either of those two manage it and prove me wrong then fair enough but, put it this way, I won't be holding my breath and there is no way on this Earth that they would have been freed, if I had the decision to make.

[Dinkydoo]

As I said earlier, I'll let the psychologists and the experts make the decisions on whether people really pose a risk to society.

However, my own personal view is that I am extremely sceptical of any claim that tries to suggest that people who commit heinous crimes, particularly those of a sexual nature against children, are capable of changing for good.

We're not just talking here about a couple of "Jack the lads" in their late teens having sex with a 14-15 year old girl. We're talking about a couple of boys who, even early on in life, clearly had a deep fascination with the sexual torture of young children. Venables was apparently found with images on his computer of the most serious nature on the child pornography scale

If either of those two manage it and prove me wrong then fair enough but, put it this way, I won't be holding my breath and there is no way on this Earth that they would have been freed, if I had the decision to make.

.......and I agree with you wholeheartedly, in this case; just not with the general statement you made about the public seeking revenge.

[ArabHibee]

As I said earlier, I'll let the psychologists and the experts make the decisions on whether people really pose a risk to society.

However, my own personal view is that I am extremely sceptical of any claim that tries to suggest that people who commit heinous crimes, particularly those of a sexual nature against children, are capable of changing for good.

We're not just talking here about a couple of "Jack the lads" in their late teens having sex with a 14-15 year old girl. We're talking about a couple of boys who, even early on in life, clearly had a deep fascination with the sexual torture of young children. Venables was apparently found with images on his computer of the most serious nature on the child pornography scale

If either of those two manage it and prove me wrong then fair enough but, put it this way, I won't be holding my breath and there is no way on this Earth that they would have been freed, if I had the decision to make.

Well, we have really only heard about one of them being in trouble again with the law. "Robert Thomson", I'm sure I read, has not re-offended, is either in the armed forces or was and has settled down and has a family.
Just as well you never held your breath. :greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

Well, we have really only heard about one of them being in trouble again with the law. "Robert Thomson", I'm sure I read, has not re-offended, is either in the armed forces or was and has settled down and has a family.
Just as well you never held your breath. :greengrin

Give it time. :agree:

At some point, I believe there will come a time when Thompson falls foul of the law.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Give it time. :agree:

At some point, I believe there will come a time when Thompson falls foul of the law.

yep, probably because some bam has got hold of his picture and provoked a reaction.

We need to learn to let the law govern and not succumb to mob rule, not always easy I know but we just create more problems if we do give into the daily rags wims.

[ArabHibee]

No-one should ever be given a secret identity because I do not believe that it is sustainable and these two should have never been released.


I don't think Mary Bell would agree with you.

[Steve-O]

Whilst I thought it was probably the right thing to do to protect both of their identities when they they were released from prison, now that he's committed a very serious (and disgusting) crime as an adult I finding myself thinking he doesn't deserve this kind of protection any longer. The other guy by all accounts has used his second chance well, has joined the army and serves/served in Afghanistan, but this one shouldn't even be getting released for a second time in my opinion. I thought that if you were freed under license and commit another offence then you're meant to serve the remainder of the original sentence plus any time for the offence you were recalled for - is that right? So surely he should be inside for life now?


I'm not 100% on this but I'm sure the 2 of them were only sentenced to 8 years, not life. So when their 8 years was up, they were released on licence and if they committed another crime they would immediately be pulled back into jail until the trial and verdict, rather than being charged and let out on bail.
<p>&nbsp;</p>

They were given life sentences. They were released on parole. They can be recalled at any time until their death. When recalled it does NOT mean they have to serve the rest of their sentence. They potentially could, but they still have the possibility of parole. I'd suggest Venables will get parole again in the not too distant future, if he can demonstrate he doesn't pose an undue risk to the safety of the community.

I'd also ask people to think about things they did when they were 10 years old and consider whether they'd do or say half of the things they did then, now!

It's ludicrous to say that someone who did something terrible when they were 10 cannot have changed.

Yes Venables is back in for what is fairly serious offending, but it's a long way off abducting and murdering another child is it not?

[lucky]

They were just children themselves when they committed that hideous crime. As such they should be given protection and a new identity on release. It is on license they were released on. So a simple breech of the peace means back in side for another two years or so.

A society should be judged on how its penal system is run, surely prison has to be about reforming individuals as well as punishment by of loss of freedom.

[IWasThere2016]

If they were exposed and there followed a vigilante attack - where both were subjected to the horrors of their poor defenseless victim - I think I would not be upset.

[Dinkydoo]

They were just children themselves when they committed that hideous crime. As such they should be given protection and a new identity on release. It is on license they were released on. So a simple breech of the peace means back in side for another two years or so.

A society should be judged on how its penal system is run, surely prison has to be about reforming individuals as well as punishment by of loss of freedom.


:agree:

[Sir David Gray]

They were given life sentences. They were released on parole. They can be recalled at any time until their death. When recalled it does NOT mean they have to serve the rest of their sentence. They potentially could, but they still have the possibility of parole. I'd suggest Venables will get parole again in the not too distant future, if he can demonstrate he doesn't pose an undue risk to the safety of the community.

I'd also ask people to think about things they did when they were 10 years old and consider whether they'd do or say half of the things they did then, now!

It's ludicrous to say that someone who did something terrible when they were 10 cannot have changed.

Yes Venables is back in for what is fairly serious offending, but it's a long way off abducting and murdering another child is it not?

I agree it's obviously not as bad as murdering another child but I don't agree that it's a "long way off" that.

Venables was found with images on his computer relating to the most serious kind of child pornography. Images of REAL (very young) children being abused in the most abhorrent way. He might not have been the one actually doing the abuse itself but it's clearly something that arouses him.

If people like Venables didn't encourage these sick individuals to carry out their depraved fantasies then perhaps many children would be saved from this disgusting business.

He also had online conversations with other paedophiles, claiming to be the mother of an eight year old girl and offering to sell her for sex.

Venables has shown himself to pose a very real danger to children and I don't see that ever changing.

Finally, I don't think it is ludicrous to suggest that someone who did something terrible when they were 10, cannot have changed. All 10 year olds get up to mischief and do things that are a bit naughty. Generally speaking, we grow out of that behaviour and realise that it is wrong. However, not all 10 year olds go about kidnapping, torturing and murdering toddlers.


They were just children themselves when they committed that hideous crime. As such they should be given protection and a new identity on release. It is on license they were released on. So a simple breech of the peace means back in side for another two years or so.

A society should be judged on how its penal system is run, surely prison has to be about reforming individuals as well as punishment by of loss of freedom.

Prison, to my mind, should be there primarily to punish offenders by taking away their freedom and certain rights, for the duration of their incarceration. If you've been sent to prison, you've clearly done something very wrong and the law abiding majority in society deserve to be protected from these people.

Their rights must come before those of an offender.

Prison should offer people the opportunity to reform and change their ways but that has to come from the offender themselves. There is absolutely no point in throwing time and money at people who have no intention of changing.

I believe that those people who show genuine remorse for whatever they've done and honestly want to turn their life around, not just through their words but more so through their actions, should be given whatever help and resources are available to them.

I know that from watching several TV programmes on prisons across the country that there are many prisoners in Britain who are good people at heart who have just chosen the wrong path and just need a little help in getting things back on track.

They have to make the first move though and they should take responsibility for their own actions and their own life.

[McHibby]

They were given life sentences. They were released on parole. They can be recalled at any time until their death. When recalled it does NOT mean they have to serve the rest of their sentence. They potentially could, but they still have the possibility of parole. I'd suggest Venables will get parole again in the not too distant future, if he can demonstrate he doesn't pose an undue risk to the safety of the community.

I'd also ask people to think about things they did when they were 10 years old and consider whether they'd do or say half of the things they did then, now!

It's ludicrous to say that someone who did something terrible when they were 10 cannot have changed.

Yes Venables is back in for what is fairly serious offending, but it's a long way off abducting and murdering another child is it not?


I agree with the fact it's ludicrous to suggest that, which I why I think it was right that they were given anonymity and the chance to rebuild their lives.

However my beef is that he's now committed a crime as an adult. Whilst the first one might have been when he was a minor, both are crimes involving children which would strongly suggest he is a danger to them. And I don't think it is that far away from abduction and murder... the kids he was looking at were really being abused and/or tortured. It's people like that him cause their suffering by creating a market for these images. Obviously child abuse wouldn't disappear overnight if people stopped viewing it, but it would probably save a number kids from going through hell just so people like him can get aroused. Child abuse lives with these people forever, and would seem to have a devastating affect on both the victim and their families. I think that perhaps the real issue is the judicial system, a couple of years inside in no way reflects the seriousness of looking at child abuse (or the dreadful consequences for the victim).

[ArabHibee]

No-one should ever be given a secret identity because I do not believe that it is sustainable and these two should have never been released.


I don't think Mary Bell would agree with you.

Or Annette McGowan:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/special-reports/crimes-that-rocked-scotland/2007/10/19/tragedy-of-the-babysitter-who-killed-helen-3-86908-19978435/

[Steve-O]

I absolutely disagree with those saying that looking at child pornography is not very far off abduction and murder.

It quite clearly is!

There is a massive jump between looking at stuff on a computer, and going out and acting it out.

Yes, he obviously HAS done it before, but as I say, he was 10 at the time, and there's very little comparison between someone at 10 years old, and the same person 20 years later.

Additionally, Venables is being punished by being back in jail, his identity may or may not have been exposed, and he's now in a very difficult position. Therefore, I don't see why anyone really has a problem given that justice is taking it's course.

[Steve-O]

Finally, I don't think it is ludicrous to suggest that someone who did something terrible when they were 10, cannot have changed. All 10 year olds get up to mischief and do things that are a bit naughty. Generally speaking, we grow out of that behaviour and realise that it is wrong. However, not all 10 year olds go about kidnapping, torturing and murdering toddlers.

.

Of course they don't, however why can't they have grown out of that behaviour and been made to realise it was wrong? Unless I am mistaken it was fairly clear at the time that they knew they had done wrong after the event. However, being 10, they failed to appreciate the gravity of what they had done. I would've thought that their time inside would've hammered home exactly how terrible the act they committed was wrong.

The way some people go on you'd think they'd done absolutely nothing the whole time they were in prison!

Thompson seems to have led a crime free life since being released, so what do we say about him? Clearly he's changed since he was 10, no?

[Allant1981]

How do you know he has clearly changed?

[Steve-O]

How do you know he has clearly changed?

Is he abducting and murdering kids that we don't know about?

Are you saying people don't change from when they are 10?

[Sir David Gray]

Of course they don't, however why can't they have grown out of that behaviour and been made to realise it was wrong? Unless I am mistaken it was fairly clear at the time that they knew they had done wrong after the event. However, being 10, they failed to appreciate the gravity of what they had done. I would've thought that their time inside would've hammered home exactly how terrible the act they committed was wrong.

The way some people go on you'd think they'd done absolutely nothing the whole time they were in prison!

Thompson seems to have led a crime free life since being released, so what do we say about him? Clearly he's changed since he was 10, no?

Just because someone admits to realising that they've done wrong doesn't mean to say that they'll change their ways.

I think most people who have committed a crime like murder will admit to knowing that what they have done is wrong but whether or not they can alter their behaviour is an entirely different matter altogether.

The point that I would make, once again, is that I am not certain, and never will be, that someone who commits a crime like the one committed against James Bulger, particularly the sexual element to the crime, can ever be truly rehabilitated.

I also don't accept that they didn't fully appreciate the gravity of what they had done because they were only 10 years old. I work with children of this age and by that stage in their development, they know full well what the difference is between right and wrong.

I would suggest that most normal 10 year olds would not even dream of doing what these two did to James Bulger. That is why I firmly believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with their make up and I'm not convinced that traits like this can ever be changed.

Robert Thompson may have kept himself out of trouble in the last 10 years since his release but I do believe that it's only a matter of time before he's back in trouble.

[Steve-O]

Just because someone admits to realising that they've done wrong doesn't mean to say that they'll change their ways.

I think most people who have committed a crime like murder will admit to knowing that what they have done is wrong but whether or not they can alter their behaviour is an entirely different matter altogether.

The point that I would make, once again, is that I am not certain, and never will be, that someone who commits a crime like the one committed against James Bulger, particularly the sexual element to the crime, can ever be truly rehabilitated.

I also don't accept that they didn't fully appreciate the gravity of what they had done because they were only 10 years old. I work with children of this age and by that stage in their development, they know full well what the difference is between right and wrong.

I would suggest that most normal 10 year olds would not even dream of doing what these two did to James Bulger. That is why I firmly believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with their make up and I'm not convinced that traits like this can ever be changed.

Robert Thompson may have kept himself out of trouble in the last 10 years since his release but I do believe that it's only a matter of time before he's back in trouble.

We'll have to agree to disagree because I disagree strongly on every point you make here.

[steakbake]

Just because someone admits to realising that they've done wrong doesn't mean to say that they'll change their ways.

I think most people who have committed a crime like murder will admit to knowing that what they have done is wrong but whether or not they can alter their behaviour is an entirely different matter altogether.

The point that I would make, once again, is that I am not certain, and never will be, that someone who commits a crime like the one committed against James Bulger, particularly the sexual element to the crime, can ever be truly rehabilitated.

I also don't accept that they didn't fully appreciate the gravity of what they had done because they were only 10 years old. I work with children of this age and by that stage in their development, they know full well what the difference is between right and wrong.

I would suggest that most normal 10 year olds would not even dream of doing what these two did to James Bulger. That is why I firmly believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with their make up and I'm not convinced that traits like this can ever be changed.

Robert Thompson may have kept himself out of trouble in the last 10 years since his release but I do believe that it's only a matter of time before he's back in trouble.

I don't mean this pejoratively or calling you into question, but I'm fairly sure you have mentioned in these forums before that you are a Christian. If that is the case, do you not believe in redemption, forgiveness and compassion? Where does your stance outlined above fit in with that belief system?

[Allant1981]

Is he abducting and murdering kids that we don't know about?

Are you saying people don't change from when they are 10?

did i say people dont change, he might have changed his ways and is a good guy now. Seriously doubt it though. You seem to defend these two at every opportunity. They are child killers and should always be remembered and treated as such. Im one of the least violent people i know but if these two get found then they deserve all they get

[heretoday]

The Bulger killers did what they did when they were just kids.

They were very badly raised children.

Anything that has happened subsequently is irrelevant to that particular case.

[Sir David Gray]

I don't mean this pejoratively or calling you into question, but I'm fairly sure you have mentioned in these forums before that you are a Christian. If that is the case, do you not believe in redemption, forgiveness and compassion? Where does your stance outlined above fit in with that belief system?

Being a Christian is a very difficult thing and being a good Christian is extremely challenging. I would describe myself as a Christian, maybe not a good one but still a Christian nonetheless.

It is up to the family of James Bulger to decide if they feel able to forgive his killers. I don't think it's anyone else's business to forgive or not.

What I will say is, if James Bulger had been my son, brother, nephew etc, I can't honestly say that I could find it in my heart to forgive these two for what they did to him. As a Christian, I would obviously need to try but I really don't know if I would find it possible.

As for redemption, that is something that Venables and Thompson may receive after they die. Maybe they already have/will atone for their sins and I believe that if they ask for forgiveness, they will receive it.

But, again, that's not a decision for me.

In terms of compassion, I am compassionate towards a lot of people. Maybe it's wrong and maybe it's un-Christian of me as well, but I cannot show compassion towards people who kidnap, torture and murder defenceless two year olds in the most callous and brutal way imaginable.

[Steve-O]

did i say people dont change, he might have changed his ways and is a good guy now. Seriously doubt it though. You seem to defend these two at every opportunity. They are child killers and should always be remembered and treated as such. Im one of the least violent people i know but if these two get found then they deserve all they get

You seriously doubt it? So really, you are saying they haven't changed?

I am not defending what they did, I am saying there were mitigating circumstances, particularly the fact they were 10 years old at the time.

You're not a violent person but you'd be happy for 2 people to be murdered by a lynch mob? Nice.

[Allant1981]

Well since one of them has been up to no good then no they have clearly not changed for the better, i dont really care what age they were. 10 yr olds know that taking someone andkilling them isnt right but they done it anyway, and i didnt say i wasnt a violent person and i never once mentioned murder, legally killed on the other hand wouldnt be a bad thing. I have no time for killers and jail is to good for them

[Steve-O]

Well since one of them has been up to no good then no they have clearly not changed for the better, i dont really care what age they were. 10 yr olds know that taking someone andkilling them isnt right but they done it anyway, and i didnt say i wasnt a violent person and i never once mentioned murder, legally killed on the other hand wouldnt be a bad thing. I have no time for killers and jail is to good for them

Sorry, there is no such thing in the UK.

Again, we'll agree to disagree.

I'm just glad some people on here don't work in the Justice system.

[ArabHibee]

The Bulger killers did what they did when they were just kids.

They were very badly raised children.

Anything that has happened subsequently is irrelevant to that particular case.

What a load of tosh.

[Dinkydoo]

Well since one of them has been up to no good then no they have clearly not changed for the better, i dont really care what age they were. 10 yr olds know that taking someone andkilling them isnt right but they done it anyway, and i didnt say i wasnt a violent person and i never once mentioned murder, legally killed on the other hand wouldnt be a bad thing. I have no time for killers and jail is to good for them

How does one person's actions indicate that another has not changed......:confused:

[Phil D. Rolls]

I m not vilent eether, bit the thowt of that Iain Huntley :brickwall sitt-in in jayle reeding this makes me want to rip his hed off!!! :grr: