Wonder what the sun's headline would be if he was posting on here?

Bulger Killer Was Chris Benoit Fan.

We can reveal today that sick Jamie Bulger killer Jon Venables was a fan of child-killer Chris Benoit. While Jamie's family still have to suffer with their loss, Jon Venables spent his days and nights posting on Benoit-worship site 'The UKFF'.

The internet forum, which has a BNP-inspired logo, spends most of it's time:

- Talking about the killers 'workrate'
- Telling SICK jokes about cancer-stricken angel JADE GOODY
- MOCKING poor STEPHEN GATELY
- HARRASSING wrestling promoters like STEPHEN GAUNTLEY
- TEASING the handicapped mentalists on their board like MAB and 'VICTOR C'

One insider, who goes by the violent name of 'Carbomb' said 'it's sick. They constantly tease people and praise Chris Benoit, despite the fact he violently murdered kids, just like Jon Venables. I worry about immigrants. I think anyone who murders kids like poor sweet Jamie Bulger and poor little Daniel Benoit should be killed.'

One insider, who goes by the violent name of 'Carbomb' said 'it's sick. They constantly tease people and praise Chris Benoit, despite the fact he violently murdered kids, just like Jon Venables. I worry about immigrants. I think anyone who murders kids like poor sweet Jamie Bulger and poor little Daniel Benoit should be killed.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...ers-mother.html

Okay I know Denise Fergus lost her son but I am sick and tired of the Woman and for the record I dont even agree with the majority of what Maggie Atkinson said.

The dirt rags are going to love this.

As usual, Denise Fergus is spot on.

Atkinson's (guess who's paying her salary) comments were inflammatory and disgraceful. She could have only topped it off by making her announcement dancing on James Bulger's grave.

Since when should people be sacked from their jobs for having an opinion?

Earlier in the week she demanded that the justice officials who have been monitoring Jon Venables be sacked. Why? If Venables has indeed been accessing child pornography on the internet or whatever, what the hell can those in charge of monitoring him do about that? And, as she's fully aware, he has been recalled to custody.

What Mrs Fergus - and people like you - are essentially saying is that an educated person in a public position cannot make a measured statement, because it doesn't fit with the tabloid language of revenge. It's a ridiculous way to conduct a debate.

Denise Fergus is a fucking cunt.

No, PR people and the tabloids are fucking cunts.

Nah, she's a cunt. Your kid was killed... blah blah, get over it.

Where's James Bulger's father in all of this? All i've heard about is how his mother wants this and that done.

Drop dead......please?

I trust that post was ment to be a "ooo look how out there i am with my views"

How old are you? Id guess about 13?

Mrs Fergus said: “To describe the murder of James as 'unpleasant’ is an insult to his memory, and a downright lie

She actually described it as 'exceptionally unpleasant'. And I'm also confused as to which part of that Mrs Fergus finds so offensive.

But when Denise Fergus speaks up to disagree with the taxpayer paid "Children's Commissioner" on a matter that affects her to the point that if what Atkinson proposed was in place in 1993 her sons killers would have literally got away with murder, she's called by the intellectual "heavyweights" here a cunt, whore and told to shut the fuck up. Liberal Fascism at its best.

There should be no minimum age of criminal responsibility in this country, if a youth commits a crime the police should be allowed to determine wherever if the youth concerned was aware of what they were doing and wherever they should be sent to be prosecuted, along with the parents or guardians if need be.

Raven, what the "do gooders" here on this forum fail to realise is that they have became caught up so much with things like the "rights" of criminals, so much so that these days they forget that Venables tortured a toddler to death. But when Denise Fergus speaks up to disagree with the taxpayer paid "Children's Commissioner" on a matter that affects her to the point that if what Atkinson proposed was in place in 1993 her sons killers would have literally got away with murder, she's called by the intellectual "heavyweights" here a cunt, whore and told to shut the fuck up. Liberal Fascism at its best.

This is where the social liberal agenda of the last five decades have led to I'm afraid. UK society has became FUBAR'd.

There should be no minimum age of criminal responsibility in this country, if a youth commits a crime the police should be allowed to determine wherever if the youth concerned was aware of what they were doing and wherever they should be sent to be prosecuted, along with the parents or guardians if need be.

Raven, what the "do gooders" here on this forum fail to realise is that they have became caught up so much with things like the "rights" of criminals, so much so that these days they forget that Venables tortured a toddler to death. But when Denise Fergus speaks up to disagree with the taxpayer paid "Children's Commissioner" on a matter that affects her to the point that if what Atkinson proposed was in place in 1993 her sons killers would have literally got away with murder, she's called by the intellectual "heavyweights" here a cunt, whore and told to shut the fuck up. Liberal Fascism at its best.

This is where the social liberal agenda of the last five decades have led to I'm afraid. UK society has became FUBAR'd.

There should be no minimum age of criminal responsibility in this country, if a youth commits a crime the police should be allowed to determine wherever if the youth concerned was aware of what they were doing and wherever they should be sent to be prosecuted, along with the parents or guardians if need be.

Raven, what the "do gooders" here on this forum fail to realise is that they have became caught up so much with things like the "rights" of criminals, so much so that these days they forget that Venables tortured a toddler to death.

His current situation however, has absolutely fuck all to do with Fergus or any other member of the public.

Wendall Cooley is the 'intellectual heavyweight' of the forum?

I am pretty fucking clever, you have to admit.

There should be no minimum age of criminal responsibility in this country,

Quoted just for the spectacular idiocy of this general, sweeping statement.

I'm waiting on him saying that the mentally challenged should be held completely accountable for any criminal actions they commit as well.

Secondly, Regarding 'do gooders'/'rights' of criminals and forgetting that toddlers have been killed. Please can you show evidence of this using this thread, or are you refering specifcally to the mythical 'they or them!'

They get put down if they bite someone, don't they?

Incidentally, if you're calling for the parents/guardians to be prosecuted: do you believe that Denise Fergus should have been prosecuted for leaving her son alone outside a butchers while she shopped inside?

Incidentally, if you're calling for the parents/guardians to be prosecuted: do you believe that Denise Fergus should have been prosecuted for leaving her son alone outside a butchers while she shopped inside?

We couldn't have that.

We would have to look at prosecution for Madeleine McCanns parents as well, wouldn't we? That wouldn't wash with the "voices of the people" on our news stands every day.

Get a grip you tit.

I'm hardly what you can call a "do gooder", but to say that anyone is forgetting what Venables done is nonsense.

Fergus is speaking on matters she really knows nothing about, and the tabloid press are only too happy to offer her a platform in order to sell newspapers.

The bottom line is, Venables has served his time for the murder of Bulger, and had been released with certain conditions, and rightly so.

His current situation however, has absolutely fuck all to do with Fergus or any other member of the public.

It's as simple as that really.

We couldn't have that.

We would have to look at prosecution for Madeleine McCann's parents as well, wouldn't we? That wouldn't wash with the "voices of the people" on our news stands every day.

Who are these posters you talk about Glen?

Our attitude to kids shows we need to grow up

Imagine this, since we’re so fond of taking our ideas from Scandinavia these days. It’s the mid-1990s and a small child goes missing. Eventually a body is found — the post-mortem shows that the kid has been beaten, stripped and left to die. Two boys confess to the murder.

We all know what doesn’t happen next. What doesn’t happen next is that they go home. And then a couple of weeks later go back to school, albeit with watchful “minders”. It is inconceivable that, though everyone in the community knows who they are, no one names them. Or that the press knows their names, but sees fit not to publish them. Or that there is no adult trial, no petitions that they be locked away for life, and no vengeful bereaved parent. It is unbelievable that they should be young adults now, scarred by their juvenile crime but not by the adult judicial process or by an eternal desire for revenge.

Except in Norway, in the late autumn of 1994, just a year after the Bulger murder, the unimaginable is exactly what happened. That October Silje Redergard was killed by two six-year-olds. More than half a decade later, Terje Lund, the policeman leading the investigation, was interviewed by the BBC about the comparisons between the Redergard and Bulger cases.

Lund was shocked by what happened in Britain. “I really don’t like to hear that you can put children, ten years old, into custody,” he said. “I think it’s meaningless.” In Norway the age of criminal responsibility is 15.

But Silje was not his child. Her mother was Beate Redergard, who was traumatised by the loss of her daughter. Beate was asked specifically how she coped with the fact that there had been no prosecution for Silje’s murder. “It’s very difficult,” she replied. “I think it would have been much easier to put it all behind me if someone had been punished for the crime but I don’t think it’s right to punish small children.”

In another, later interview Ms Redergard added that she thought the boys understood what they had done, “but not the consequences”. “If these boys would have been treated like adults and locked up they would have lost out on so much — their grasp on reality, how society works. They most likely wouldn’t cope with being put on the streets at the age of 18. Would they have learnt something? I don’t think so.”

The views of Ms Redergard and Officer Lund were essentially those of the incoming children’s commissioner, Maggie Atkinson, when she spoke to The Times last week. Dr Atkinson argued that the age of responsibility — at 10 — was too low and that far too much emphasis was placed on punishment rather than on reclaiming the child for society and for itself. It had been wrong, she suggested, to try Venables and Thompson in an open, adult court.

It is impossible not to contrast Denise Fergus, Jamie Bulger’s mother, with Beate Redergard when examining her response, that “this woman” should apologise both to her and her dead child for her “twisted and insensitive comments” and then be sacked. But Mrs Fergus represents us in this matter, otherwise she wouldn’t continually be consulted and quoted as though she had been working for 30 years in the area of child offending.

That she is we, for the purposes of this discussion, was made clear by Baroness Butler Sloss, who presided over one of the later Venables- Thompson hearings. The Baroness did not disagree with Dr Atkinson on the age of responsibility and our treatment of children in the courts. In fact she tended to the same opinion, that “young people can be turned”. But she did “not believe the public will at the moment stand for murderers of ten years old being treated as if they are children and not having to face punishment”.

That’s entirely a calculation about us, and it’s rather a grim one. The argument stands for treating children as children, but we will not hear it. We will put our fingers in our ears and sing “lala” instead, and will savage anyone who tries to persuade us otherwise.

And am I so damn superior? Absolutely not. I am a man in a house of women and girls, and I want them protected from predators, and imagine condign justice being delivered to anyone who offends against them. So I have always been an instinctive believer in the need for, and the possibility of, delivering many more convictions for rape and sexual assault. If only everybody was to treat it as seriously as I do, I have allowed myself to imagine, then there’d be a whole lot more rapists behind bars.

Lala. Can’t hear you. And I’ll drown out with feeling the tiny, needling, sensible voice that says that there may be an insoluble problem, because, actually, it will so often be his word against her word, and there’ll be no one else around, and unless we alter the rule about the presumption of guilt, then there’s only so far we can go.

And then along comes Baroness Stern, given the job by Harriet Harman of reviewing the handling of rape cases. The baroness was sent to work a year ago amid specific ministerial reference to low conviction rates, but has returned with something else. Baroness Stern feels that, in the first place, conviction rates are not so very low once cases come to trial, and that to keep on saying they are is counter-productive.

Furthermore, they are never going to be much higher under the current legal system. There will always be a discrepancy between rape and other violent crimes.

And that means that we may have put too much emphasis on the criminal justice process, while ignoring “the actual needs of the human being who’s suffered this appalling violation.” At the very least they should be balanced. Much more effort should go into victim support and counselling.

I don’t want to misrepresent the baroness, who clearly feels that more could be done to co-ordinate efforts to catch serial rapists. But I feel that she’s asking people like me to be more realistic and to surrender some of our fantasies about how a perfect justice system should work and how the guilty will be made to suffer.

As fantasies go, this one — it seems to me — is particularly Anglo-Saxon. And it is far from harmless, because we drive ourselves mad with the impossibility of its fulfilment. Unlike the Norwegians, where, on contemplation, I find I prefer Beate Redergard and Terje Lund to Denise Fergus and to me.

though in the case of Venables and Thompson I think they would of just killed another kid even if they took it out of a garden when the parent nipped inside for a few moments.

James Bulger killer Jon Venables confessed real identity to strangers as mental state crumbled
Prison staff fear an attack by other inmates as it is revealed that pressure of keeping his name and background secret led James Bulger's murderer to fights, and drink and drug abuse

Jon Venables, one of the killers of the Liverpool toddler James Bulger, had descended into a "persistent state of self-disclosure" in which he felt compelled to tell others his real identity in the months before his return to prison, the Observer has been told.The 27-year-old's mental state had become so fragile that he would regularly reveal his identity to strangers – something that had put him at risk of attack.

Sources said Venables had become a heavy drinker and there have also been claims that he used drugs. As Venables entered into an increasingly disturbed psychological state, he had become embroiled in a series of confrontations and fights, the sources said.

The Ministry of Justice has been criticised for refusing to disclose why Venables was recalled. In statement issued yesterday, the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, said: "It was not in the public interest to do so. Our motivation throughout has been solely to ensure that some extremely serious allegations are properly investigated and that justice is done."

An injunction was issued against the Sun newspaper on Friday night to prevent it from printing a story detailing Venables's alleged offences.

His deteriorating mental condition has seen him transferred into the hospital wing of the prison where he is being held in an isolation room. He is understood to have told fellow prisoners and staff who he is, making it more likely that his new identity will leak out.

"It's an extremely difficult position for the authorities to be in," said Harry Fletcher, assistant secretary general of the probation union, Napo. "If they go ahead with court proceedings, this could undermine his anonymity but the fact he is self-disclosing his identity means giving him another new identity becomes almost inevitable. This situation is fraught with difficulties."

Venables's former solicitor, Laurence Lee, has warned that sending his client back to prison would mean the authorities would "have a tinderbox on their hands". "He has been living in the community with a new identity for nine years and by recalling him they have risked everything that has been achieved," Lee said. "Now every prisoner and prison officer will be trying to work out which of the recalls in the last week is Venables. It's an absolute nightmare."

The allegations have revived interest in a case that shocked the nation ever since it emerged that Venables and his then friend, Robert Thompson, had abducted toddler James Bulger from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, on 12 February 1993, and beaten him to death on a railway line. Venables and Thompson, who were both 10 at the time, became the youngest people to be jailed for murder in English criminal history. At their trial, it emerged that they had struck the toddler with a battery and bricks and then left him for dead.

After intensive rehabilitation, the pair were given new identities and released from custody under licence in 2001, a move that prompted a national debate as to whether children who have committed serious crimes should be treated in the same way as adults.

James Bulger's parents, Ralph and Denise, protested at the pair's release on a life licence, which came after the European Court of Human Rights overturned a decision by the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, to extend their sentences. The stringent conditions of their licences meant the pair were not allowed to return to Liverpool or contact each other again. There is no evidence Venables was recalled for breaching either of these specific conditions.

Only a handful of people are believed to know Venables's identity but this is likely to have been compromised by his recent reintroduction into the judicial system. Relatively few people who have served a life sentence are recalled – last year there were only 89 – making it likely that Venables's identity would have become common currency within the prison system even before he had started revealing it to others himself.

Experts said they were not surprised Venables had suffered acute psychological pressures in the months before his recall to prison. Fletcher said Mary Bell, the 11-year-old jailed in 1968 for the manslaughter of two young boys, eventually disclosed her identity to others, including a journalist with whom she worked on a book about her case, years after she had been released.

Ian Cumming, a consultant forensic psychiatrist who has worked with serious offenders in the prison system, said "the national demonisation of an individual was a heavy burden" that could explain why someone would find it difficult to keep their past hidden forever.

"Double lives are a burden for people," Cumming said. "Just juggling two relationships is stressful and the secrecy takes its toll. People are not necessarily well equipped to do this sort of thing; it's not their natural state."

The Bulgers have said Venables is now back "where he belongs". Of the two killers, it has been suggested that Venables was the more impressionable and the one who had first felt remorse for his actions. He was seen to ask his solicitor to apologise on his behalf to the Bulgers shortly after being sentenced.

But it emerged that Venables had a history of violence even before the Bulger murder, having tried to throttle a fellow classmate. Questions about his role in the murder were also raised by CCTV footage that show him singling out the toddler in the shopping centre.

He was considered, however, a model of rehabilitation when he came to be released. Lee said: "If someone said to me one of the two boys has breached his licence, I would have put my house on it being Thompson."