Jon Venables back in prison

[Chris B]

The video "Child's Play 3" was reckoned to be a major factor and its naming brought back the 80's "Video Nasties"

 

If memory serves, it turned out they'd never seen it. One of their dads had a copy, that was all. It was just typical media hysteria.

[Glen Quagmire]

Not at all, but on this occasion I do believe they are doing it for the right reasons. I can't see any other motivation.

Nothing concrete then, just your "criminal rights" dogma.

 

but there is no reason for Jamie's parents not to have at least some access to these details and allow her to confront the killers of her child as long as they do not do anything that would normal break the law (e.g. assault, stalking)

 

Perhaps you should read up on this case a bit better and maybe, just maybe you will get the name of the victim right.

OK then, just for you, James Patrick Bulger. Happy?

 

Glenn have you failed to consider the fact that IF all or some of the details relating to venables re-arrest/return to prison were to be revealed to the general public that IF venables was charged with whatever offence he's currently being investigated for his lawyers could call for a mistrial* at any potential proceedings by claiming the jury has been potentially predjudiced by everything theyve read/heard should the government release that info???

 

Hence why they're keeping quiet about this.

 

*I'm assuming they could claim that anyway if such details were to be released..I'm sure someone like lister could probably correct me on this though.

I've already pointed out that a trial without jury can now take place in England in exceptional circumstances and indeed it has happened. Therefore the claim by a defence lawyers of a prejudiced jury could not be used.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Glen Quagmire

[BionicRedneck]

The Daily Mail comments section strikes again:

 

 

I'm pretty sure they're taking the piss.

 

Ordinarily, I'd agree. But you never know with the Mail Online folk.

[InvertedSmiley]

These two murderers have been put in to an extremely rare situation of having their identities after release being protected from the general public, but there is no reason for Jamie's parents not to have at least some access to these details and allow her to confront the killers of her child as long as they do not do anything that would normal break the law (e.g. assault, stalking) and that she could not pass such information to a third party.

The problem is, once you give the Bulger family the right to confront their sons killer, you'll be opening the door for everyone to claim that they should also be allowed to confront the killer of their family member, aren't you?

 

It's just not feasible.

Most murderer's, if they are released from jail, don't normally have anonymity protection given to them so for the relatives of the murdered it isn't too hard to track them down normally.

 

Most murderers aren't ten years old when they commit their crime.

 

Loss of life for a loss of life and an eye for an eye. And no, it doesn't leave everyone blind, only those who are dead end up blind.

 

So you're happy with the solution being to kill more children?

 

Hanging Venables and Thompson would have made no difference compared to now in helping society "understand" why they killed a two year old boy for kicks. Do we as a society have any less understanding with these two murderers effectively walking free having spent eight years in a glorified Butlins camp?

 

Of course it would have made a difference. It would have completely eliminated any opportunity we may have had to look at those young boys and see what we can do to perhaps stop others going the same route as they did and to change the behaviour of those who perpetrated the act. You can look at the victim from now till eternity but that wont do anything to avoid the next victim. Looking at the perpetrators and understanding their actions might, crocodile tears on one side, practical action on the other.

 

And I don't know about a Butlins holiday camp, but in my view the two boys were serverly punished, and have lost most of their most formative years in prison & secure care homes. They likely have had minimal to no exposure to different people, cultures & travel due to their sentence, which is fully correct. However, they have served their sentence. They should not be hounded by a blood baying public and the government should never have made any comment on them.

 

They have to live with the scars of what they did when they were kids, and as a decent society (I'd like to think) we should give them the opportunity to be able to make a new life in the world for their own betterment. If that fails to work, for whatever reason, then we look at the system and think about why it didn't work and what we need to do differently.

 

Join the bleedin' heart brigade then that hasn't learned a single thing from this failed social experiment from the 1960's onwards. An evil bastard is an evil bastard, all of whom once they pass a certain point cannot be rehabilitated.

 

If they're both just naturally evil, and their actions would subsequently put them in the most extreme version of evil possible... does it not seem a bit of a statistical stretch that these two relatively unique examples of extreme evil, just happen to have grown up in the same area and been mates?

 

Is it not more likely that they're a product of their internal wiring, their environment, and probably a bit of peer pressure between the two of them?

 

Surely that makes more sense than the two most evil boys in Britain just happen to be classmates, the same age, from the same area, in the same town, etc. There's more to this than the simple black and white lazy labelling of them being "evil bastards".

 

If the stories that have surfaced about Venables are true, then it is perfectly valid that Thompson may have also breached his "licence" but hasn't been called back because he hasn't committed yet an offence that is serious. If Thompson is brought back in however at any point in the future, then that's it. Game Over.

 

No it isn't "perfectly valid" to assume that because Venables has done something wrong then Thompson may also have committed a crime. The fundamental basis of a life license means that if these guys are suspected of committing any kind of offence then they will be recalled to custody, regardless of the seriousness of the offence. Fail to pay a parking ticket on time or download some child pornography, the outcome is the same.

 

No rational person would say that Denise Fergus should not have the right to access details of the murderers of her son.

 

Within a couple of hours of her becoming the first person to be told that Venables had been arrested the story was all over the news. That is reason enough to suggest that the government is entirely right in keeping further details private. He murdered her son, which was a horrible, horrible crime. But that is where his involvement with her ends. She has no involvement in the allegations currently being made against him.

Edited March 8, 2010 by InvertedSmiley

[Glen Quagmire]

So you missed that then re who the case should involve? Also, Why is it in the public interest? What makes it public interest worthy?

 

The public interest is justified in the same way as there is a Sex Offenders Register.

 

Secondly Child Killers on the UKFF.. Okay.. Firstly accept that many people on here have broken laws (no matter how minor) So effectively you are, or have spoken to people who are 'criminals' in the eyes of the law, as a matter of course. How does that make you feel?

 

You're descending into the same bollockery that JNLister indulged in here trying to apply a moral code of "all or nothing" without considering the rationality of the end effect of what laws they've broken. Please don't attempt to outsmart yourself as well unless you yourself really want to label certain (unknown to me) posters in the same category as cold blooded toddler murderers.

 

'We' dont know everything about who posts on this forum what their private lives are and indeed who they are in real life, nor should we unless they feel it is relevant to disclose it. So you could be talking about Cena gimmicks with a child killer and wouldnt know.. Are you really that paranoid/ have a need to control about things you have to know everything, because that will make it easier or something?

Paranoid? Moi? If I was paranoid, I'd be asking some pretty probing questions completely off-topic of various posters. Show me where I've done this and I'll gladly respond.

 

Regarding the paper thing, did I mention The Mail and The Sun specifically? The use of 'everyone' embolded was also substantiated by 'afaik' which meant I wasnt 100 per cent sure, but based on what I have read and picked up from various media, that this was the case. It is widely known that the Baby P case Judge and Ofsted condemned the whole of Harringay Social Services from Sharon Shoesmith down, which means implicitly if you worked for them then you have that 'blot' and are guilty by association.

 

No justification of your own hype then?

 

Regarding the pressure and the media and the medical side of the whole issue.. The Harringey Independent has This on the Doctor who didnt spot the broken back. But its all her fault that the Baby was tortured and killed and not those that did the torturing isnt it? Its definately naff all to do with the media persecution and subsequent media which hunt that has followed

 

Melodramatic are we not? The press in this country does have a lot to answer for, if only because ordinary people so easily lap them up.

 

The nurses you mentioned were involved in the case? or worked on a different department? Same Hopsital? Again afaik it was casualty that came in for a knocking in the press. Ditto for your cousin.. She works for Haringey Council? Did she work there at the time? How has the OFSTED inspection/Control, Constant media intrusion inc a Panorama show iirc effected the way she works on a daily basis? What are her chances of getting a job in another area as a social work with 'that' stigma attached?

 

Your previous posting gave an impression that every judge and social worker in the UK was given a dressing down. I'll accept that was a case of crossed wires.

 

How can you pass judgement on those who were 'slightly' involved? You make them seem as bad as the real perpetrators, those that abused and killed the Baby. Does that mean by association that family/mates/colleagues of John Venables and Robert Thompson ( then and now) are therefore guilty by association as well?

 

Obviously no one is more guilty than Tracey Connolly, Steven Barker and Jason Owen (all three whose sentences were far too lenient). However those involved from social services who did not follow up on possible signs of abuse have to bear at least some guilt. It only takes good people to do nothing for evil to flourish.

 

Closure... The boys were tried and convicted of their crime and have served that time, what other closure do you want? They have been punished by the law of the land for their crimes, they have served their time and have been released?

The only people serving a life sentence as a result of the killing of James Patrick Bulger are Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger. No way can the eight years "served" by Venables and Thompson be described as an adequate sentence. The justice system in Britain is a joke. At least the Chinese authorities respond to public opinion if sentences are regarded as too lenient.

[patiirc]

The public interest is justified in the same way as there is a Sex Offenders Register.

 

And that way is? That sentence doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say? Ive re-read it several times and am still not sure what your trying to allude to.

 

You're descending into the same bollockery that JNLister indulged in here trying to apply a moral code of "all or nothing" without considering the rationality of the end effect of what laws they've broken. Please don't attempt to outsmart yourself as well unless you yourself really want to label certain (unknown to me) posters in the same category as cold blooded toddler murderers.

 

I like that term, 'bollockery', asking questions and making statements gets you accused of all sorts. I was making a supposition about this place and asking you views on how you feel talking to potentially untried criminals, which tied into your point about having child killers on the Ukff. An issue which you highlighted as being potentially horrendous in a previous post

 

Instead you have spun the answer into some kind of psychobabble related direction. The seriousness of the crime wasnt a consideration it was the fact they are unpunished that was question. *sigh*

 

Paranoid? Moi? If I was paranoid, I'd be asking some pretty probing questions completely off-topic of various posters. Show me where I've done this and I'll gladly respond.

 

^ Paranoia is defined by Wiki as being

 

Paranoia is a thought process heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself.

 

The answers that you have given to some of your posts have suggested that there is a sense of irrationality and delusion. Although you have responded to each and every post which deserves kudos. Much of your discussion seems fragmented, defensive and incomplete. I get from things such as the bollockery and the costantant reapprasial of your views, that by the definition above there is an element of paranoia to your posts. Rather than try and explain your put a number of one liners and deflect the issues to psycho analysis or your fire back with some personal insults or try and spin it to your view. Its not 'J'accuse' I genuinely want answers rather than empty responses that start something but dont follow it up. It leaves alot open to suggestion and supposition hence why, many posters have re posted comments after your answers, because they dont necessarily solve what was asked initially and just pose further questions whilst deflecting the issue at hand towards something else.

 

So as an aside what probing questions would you ask to whom.

 

No justification of your own hype then?

 

Explain how the proposed hyperbole isnt justfied and Id be more than happy to respond. What do you want justification of or for?

 

Melodramatic are we not? The press in this country does have a lot to answer for, if only because ordinary people so easily lap them up.

 

So your requested an answer, you got one with proof and then Iam melodramatic for using that example...but your not paranoid as per definition above?

 

Okay, should I use the example Of Anne-Marie West and her persecution after Fred and Rose West or the Press hounding my school friends after Sajid Badat was arrested/tried/convicted?

 

What more evidence do you require regarding the that making things open to press/ public is grossly irresponsible and creates misery for those who are guilty by association. I take it you have never made a mistake and have had to live with its consequences. In this case, for whatever reason the doctor in the case is being strung up by the press because they still dont feel villified and because of that pressure and intrusion is now being made an example of. I dont know if she was a good doctor or not, Its going to be irrelevenet as she will be forever tarnished with that error come what may and will be held accountable by all and sundry. Iam not a medical man, I dont know how easy such a thing could be to miss. What I do see is a feeble attempt but putting someone to the slaughter to make sure that confidence is seemingly restored in a health care system, by effectively lynching someone for what they did not see.

 

Transpose it to the Bulger case, you expect that Venables' family and friends and work colleagues, girl/boyfriends or whatever would not be abused beat up or whatever, if his new identity or details regarding the case were made public. and its not just a case of protecting the Killer, its protecting other people. Screaming and stomping for it does not make it right.

 

 

Obviously no one is more guilty than Tracey Connolly, Steven Barker and Jason Owen (all three whose sentences were far too lenient). However those involved from social services who did not follow up on possible signs of abuse have to bear at least some guilt. It only takes good people to do nothing for evil to flourish.

 

*Sigh* Define evil please, and explain how it flourishes.

 

The only people serving a life sentence as a result of the killing of James Patrick Bulger are Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger. No way can the eight years "served" by Venables and Thompson be described as an adequate sentence. The justice system in Britain is a joke. At least the Chinese authorities respond to public opinion if sentences are regarded as too lenient.

 

Ah yes the 'melodrama' you mentioned earlier. It works both ways doesnt it? Eight years is not an adequate sentence why? The justice system is a joke how? What has Chinese 'posse' rule got anything to do with this?

 

Also with regard to your trial without jury, unless its been amended again, the 2003 Act (enforced in 2007) that allowed provision for this is in a case where the Jury could concievable be bribed, come under physical harm or duress or their familiess put under the same afaik. How would that apply to whatever allege thing Venables has done?

 

Cheers

[Kenny McBride]

I'd bet that if you took every one who commits a murder, a higher proportion of them would have previously committed a minor offence than the proportion which would have committed murder. So executing/locking up for life anyone who commits a minor offence is a much more effective way to cut the number of murders.

 

Interestingly, I had a very enlightening conversation with someone I work with on this subject the other day. He was pointing out - and he should know, being a highly qualified criminal psychologist - that sexual abuse is most often committed not by "monsters" and "beasts" and "twisted perverts" but by petty criminals. The correlations and predictors are more to do with general criminality than any sort of sexual behaviour. Most sex offenders are known to the police and the CPA/PF before they get caught for any sex crime. That's how most of them get caught - they spill a drop or leave a fingerprint somewhere and they're found out because their DNA and fingerprints are already on file somewhere. Therefore, it is entirely logical to suggest that by locking up petty criminals for life without parole, we would substantially reduce the number of SEX BEASTS free to harm OUR PRECIOUS LITTLE ONES.

[Astro Hollywood]

Richard Herring used to have a bit in his stand-up about paedos. It went along the lines of, 95% of nonces become sex offenders after being abused as children themselves, so when the police are dealing with kids who've been abused, they should immediately hang the child, to prevent the crimes of a virtually guaranteed future paedophile.

[Kenny McBride]

Richard Herring used to have a bit in his stand-up about paedos. It went along the lines of, 95% of nonces become sex offenders after being abused as children themselves, so when the police are dealing with kids who've been abused, they should immediately hang the child, to prevent the crimes of a virtually guaranteed future paedophile.

 

It'd save the NHS a fucking fortune in psychiatry and psychology too. These people want to talk about their problems FOREVER. Just get on with it, kid. We all had it rough growing up. What makes you so fucking special?

[GalaxyV.2]

After thinking about this for a while, I've changed my mind. I always thought that I didn't see what use it would do for anybody to know what he's inside for. But now I don't believe the mother or father should know either, quite frankly I've been sickened by the medias manipulation of her, and the whole sorry mess is a new low in gutter tabloid press.

[Dynamite Duane]

I'd bet that if you took every one who commits a murder, a higher proportion of them would have previously committed a minor offence than the proportion which would have committed murder. So executing/locking up for life anyone who commits a minor offence is a much more effective way to cut the number of murders.

 

Interestingly, I had a very enlightening conversation with someone I work with on this subject the other day. He was pointing out - and he should know, being a highly qualified criminal psychologist - that sexual abuse is most often committed not by "monsters" and "beasts" and "twisted perverts" but by petty criminals. The correlations and predictors are more to do with general criminality than any sort of sexual behaviour. Most sex offenders are known to the police and the CPA/PF before they get caught for any sex crime. That's how most of them get caught - they spill a drop or leave a fingerprint somewhere and they're found out because their DNA and fingerprints are already on file somewhere. Therefore, it is entirely logical to suggest that by locking up petty criminals for life without parole, we would substantially reduce the number of SEX BEASTS free to harm OUR PRECIOUS LITTLE ONES.

Be handy if you could explain this more with some sort of evidence mate. Sounds like your friend is qualified on this subject but I'd like to know how he came up with that. I was under the impression most sex abuse to children was actually committed by a person they know/family member. Also can you define petty criminal please, that sounds a bit of loose term. The idea of locking up petty criminals for life without parole sounds a bit a extreme.

 

Often the case is with people who do wrong things, their conscience allows them to be caught.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Dynamite Duane

[JLM]

The idea of locking up petty criminals for life without parole sounds a bit a extreme.

 

That's exactly the point they're making.

[Loki]

Yes, it does seem to fly in the face of most reportage of sexual abuse, which tends to show that abuse most often happens within family/close friend circles, rather than "petty criminals". "Stranger Danger" is generally considered to be only a very small percentage of recorded sexual abuse.

 

Perhaps what Kenny means is that the factors that create a person's predisposition to sexual crimes are also those that tend to lead to petty crime - poverty, poor education, fractured or dysfunctional family and upbringing. Personally, I'd like to see the media focus more on solving those problems that demonising offenders whilst sweeping the more difficult questions under the carpet.

[The King Of Swing]

quite frankly I've been sickened by the medias manipulation of her, and the whole sorry mess is a new low in gutter tabloid press.

 

Well put Galaxy and with luck more people will begin to see just how pathetic the dirt rags are.

[Carbomb]

quite frankly I've been sickened by the medias manipulation of her, and the whole sorry mess is a new low in gutter tabloid press.

 

Well put Galaxy and with luck more people will begin to see just how pathetic the dirt rags are.

 

We'll need a lot of luck. The dirt rags have been at this shit for years, with impunity - if they've not been dealt with by now, there's very little chance they'll ever be dealt with.