A good point that's been overlooked. As this was such a high profile case & will always shift units the newspapers nust have her number of speed-dial. At what point do the public become part of the problem & people should just say 'Leave the poor woman alone, let her get on with her life without constant reminders'.

It'll never happen though. For whatever reason, people can't get enough of child abuse. Housewives and other assorted morons lap this shit up. I'm still stunned at how popular all those "Stop it Daddy, It Hurts" books are. And the press remind me of that cliche about the devil, his greatest trick was convincing the world he didn't exist and all that. They whip up all manner of "controversy" and hysteria, yet somehow remain invisible (in the eyes of the average member of the public) regarding their part in it. It's like these media storms happen all on their own and the papers are there by coincidence. Nobody really bothers calling out the media on invasion of privacy or hounding people anymore, because we're all so used to it.

As far as I'm concerned, 8 years (in a unit without the punitive environment of adult prison) is not a punishment that fit the crime - they didn't lose a day of their adult lives, and probably had a much more comfortable childhood and better care inside than they would have had on the outside. In my view, 'justice' has to include some measure of retribution for the victim - in this case, the sentence was entirely waited towards making sure the offenders were alright with no care towards the victim. I honestly don't know whether they're regretting their actions or 'living the high life, chuckling about their youthful indiscretions' now, because I can't fathom the mindset of the kind of sick cunt who does that to a toddler. That they had the chance to live a full, uninhibited adult life that they didn't allow James Bulger is not even close to justice, IMO.

Though I take what the tabloids say with a pinch of salt, the reports today suggest Venables is still a fucked-up individual with every chance of posing a danger to society. Even if they're wide of the mark, I think it's highly unlikely that he'd be summarily marched back to prison and the story leaked to the press for something as inconsequential as failing to report to his parole officer on time.

I think that if it actually was the case that as children they had better care inside than they would outside it says more about their standard of home life rather than a case of young offenders istitutes being 'cushy'.

I'm assuming you're referring to them having to be given anonimty when you said the sentence was 'weighted towards making sure the offenders were alright'? I've already stated why this was given. I'm not making any apolgies for the killers but I also hold little respect for the British tabloids or their readership. Most are reactionaries who want quick, simple answers to complicated issues.



Again, they're in the business of selling papers. No-one wants to hear that after years of counselling he could be a well balanced bloke with huge remorse for the atrocity he committed as child. People want to hear stories of evil monsters lurking on every street corner. It would've made the news if one of the killers had supposedly bought a packet of fags in a shop near a school or been 'seen' in a shopping centre. Whether this would make the front page depends of course on whether Big Brother was on TV, or what was happening in the love lives of our national football team.

Not so much the anonymity, more the lightness of the sentences and shortness of the period of incarceration. For me, if you're going to lock someone up, the sentence should be based on two things: (i) how much of the offender's own freedom should be lost to make up for what he's taken from the victims, and for him to atone for his crime; and (ii) how long a period of incarceration/treatment is needed to successfully rehabilitate the offender for re-entry into society. In my view, the only thing that was taken into consideration for the sentencing of these two was the latter, with no emphasis at all on them suffering for their crime or justice being seen to be done for the victim.

I'm not advocating that their identities should be released to face the wrath of mob justice, but that they should have been punished properly and firmly within the system, and certainly not allowed to live the full, free adult life that they denied their victim and his family. I know they were young, but I'll never be convinced that they didn't know right from wrong or aren't culpable.



The story that's now been picked up by the TV news is that he's a drug addict with a history of violent altercations - if this is the case, then the system that declared the bloke 'sufficiently rehabilitated' after that pathetic 8 year sentence is severely in the wrong and needs to be turned on its arse.

They have both lost there Scouse accents acording to this article

Good Read

It was writtian in 2001 though... Still i was 13 at the time of these killings, still cant get my head around why they would want to do it, dont think anyone does to be honest.

No mention will be made of whether he provoked those, or if - the more likely case - people figured out who we was and had a pop.

Why do people think they should know who these 2 are now? What do they expect to gain?

Well, I'd be annoyed if I found out I'd voted for one of them on the X-Factor.

Not half as annoyed as Simon would when they do the week where they go back to where they grew up and visit their old school!

Perhaps he turned to drugs as a method of coping with his guilt, as the Guardian article suggested was a possibility. It's ironic that his release was considered the safer prospect, yet its turned out this way. Without knowing the full history of what has brought him back behind bars its difficult to make any sort of judgement on him. This case on a whole is difficult to deal with, I find it hard to read about the actual murder, its so damn upsetting. But then you have to consider that these were two children who have potentially grown up into different people. Would it be fair to keep them behind bars for life? It's one of those cases that provokes an emotion based response from many people. The kind of case that requires sensible people to make difficult decisions, detached from their emotions.

We have the papers saying it's in the public interest to know what he's done. I'm not sure what good that would do. It could put other people in danger with people "suspecting" they know who Venables is.

How would the anonymity work with these two having a CBR check as part of a job application? I don't know how CBR checks work, so I'm wondering if any potential employers would find out that Francis Bobbington (or whatever the new name might be) once killed a toddler.

I maybe wrong, but I wouldn't think these checks bring up specifics, just vague information on suitability.

It's CRB, criminal records bureau. Just FYI, not being anal.

Unless he has commited a genuingly nasty offence then I dont think it is in the public interest at all but the dirt rags love any chance they can get to bring the Bulger case back into the headlines.

Based on what I have read it was also pretty much the same with Mary Bell.

Nothing ever changes.

I was wondering this too. Normally your criminal record wouldn't be hidden, but are employers savvy to the fact they earned their A Levels behind bars?

The sort of job that requires a CRB check, I'd be amazed if it didn't have some details. There is no way these guys are going to be allowed to work in schools or the police or anything similar and they won't get one to work with children.

For a normal job, there's no reason for their employer to know anything. That sort of thing just encourages prejudice. You only need a CRB check for a specific reason.

I would agree, but we're talking about 10 year old murder's here.


I've met 13 year olds who still believed in Santa Claus. Do 13 year olds not have an understanding of murder?

And I don't read the Sun either - a nasty rag.


I don't see it myself.


It's presumptuous that you are telling me that I don't know the circumstances in which these two murderers were raised yet you make a presumption about my upbringing. And when I was 10 years old I do remember being at school with kids who had an upbringing as bad as what was reported about Venables and Thompson yet they didn't go out killing a toddler because they knew that you simply did not do that.

As you allude to yourself, it all depends on which newspaper you are reading. While The Sun (or any other tabloid) reports that Jon Venables is a danger to society, The Times suggested this morning that he is a born-again Christian and had served in the army. There are so many stories about what has become of Venables and his accomplice that it simply isn't possible for any of us to know what the truth is. All we can know for certain is what is in the public domain on record, such as that Venables' former solicitor expressed surprise that he had been sent back to prison as he was "by unaminous agreement the lesser evil."

While there are reports coming out today (from the Daily Mirror, it should be cautiously stressed) it is still not known why Venables has been returned to prison. It could be for something as minor as leaving the country without prior permission or failing to reside at an agreed address. He may not have reported to his supervising officer or taken on a job without approval from his supervising officer, though it's unlikely that either of those would have resulted in him being imprisoned.



Do you honestly think that, as a ten year-old, the boy didn't live practically every day in fear? He was reportedly paranoid that his secure unit would be broken into by people seeking to harm him, and feared being seen as "the new Myra Hindley". I can't imagine how it must feel to wake up every morning wondering if this is going to be the day the guy I work with finds out who I really am and what I did seventeen years ago. While that absolutely pales in comparison to the emotions Denise Fergus wakes up with every morning, it's something that I don't think the "string 'em up" brigade really consider.



Why? Not everyone who loses a loved one - particularly a son or daughter at such a young age - suddenly turns into Charles Bronson, seeking vengeance on everyone involved.



Does a ten year-old growing up in an abusive household know anything but violence? If a child is so neglected at home that he or she cannot empathise with any other kind of emotion, how can they judge something to be cruel if cruelty is all they know?



Yup, because the answer to a child killing is to murder two more...

This is not as black and white as simply stating that murder = evil bastard = death penalty. There are so many varying factors which have to be considered when those involved are so incredibly young. It is said that tortured children frequently grow up to carry out deranged acts, though here Venables and Thompson didn't even make it to the 'grow up' point. It's a headfuck just thinking about it.

What do you see then? By on one hand condemning 2 human beings for the murder of a child, then on the other hand advocating the murder of a child by full grown adults.

Either you've got youe eyse closed or don't want to see the hypocrisy cause i fail to see how you could say there isn't any there.

But I am not advocating the murder of a child by full grown adults. I am advocating the death penalty to be applied to the two murderers because I believe that anyone who is convicted of murder should receive the death penalty. If you set out to kill another human being then you lose the right to your own life no matter how old you are. Calling it as I see it.

Apparantly whatever caused him to be put back inside has to be reviewed within 28 days. Him getting out again would be a fun way to kick off the election campaign.

I made the presumption that you had parents that cared about you! That's the presumption I'd make about anyone as it's what I believe is (and should be) the norm.


And that's the difference right there.

Oh come on. Please tell me why the guy who puts the noose round the neck and pulls the lever hasn't just done the very thing you are against.

Are you presuming, again, that Venables and Thompson were not aware of what they were doing? Making their killing look like a train accident tells me they knew what they were trying to do. Even back then, children were growing up fairly quickly.



No, because he has been given the legal sanction to do just that.

Would you suggest that, for example, the execution of Timothy McVeigh was murder?

No, because he has been given the legal sanction to do just that.



Hypothetically speaking, if a law was passed that allowed 10 year olds to kill 2 year olds you'd be ok with that? I assume you'd say no because you'd look beyond the legal definition and apply a moral one right?

Again, you are saying that " If you set out to kill another human being then you lose the right to your own life no matter how old you are"

How is the legally appointed executioner not doing just that?

And back to the original point, how can you on one hand condemn the pre-meditated taking of a human life and on the other support it without being drowned in hypocrisy?

Strawman.

Quagey, it doesn't matter how you dice this shit up, it's not going to result in you being able to justify putting two kids on death row.

Not in the slightest. Its a simple question based on your previous answer that a person who puts a noose around anothers neck and hangs them is ok because



From that i inferred that you are ok with that case of the pre-meditated taking of a life because it was legal, feel free to correct me if i have it wrong.

Again based on that my hypothetical question stands : if a law was passed that allowed 10 year olds to kill 2 year olds you'd be ok with that? I assume you'd say no because you'd look beyond the legal definition and apply a moral one right?

I'd like to know how you would go from being against the pre-meditated taking of a life(Venables and Thompson) to against a pre-meditated taking of a life (hangman) to my hypothetical question. Which would apply then?

Or would there just be more hypocrisy you fail to admit?

The question of whether the public need to know why Venables was sent to prison is being discussed on Question Time now and it's a very good debate. Personally I don't believe the public have the right to know why he was sent to prison and also I don't believe the family need to know why he was sent back. In the midst of this psycho tabloid created anger, people are forgetting the basic fact and that is that the man is back inside and that is unquestionably a good thing. I also do believe that the only if the offence committed by Venables was a purely serious crime should the level of the crime be revealed but no specific details of the crime should be released, but when he is put back in, but the sake of the mothers ease of mind, she should be informed how long Venables will be back in prison.

Will Self being the erudite voice of reason on a QT panel means that the man should be on the panel permanently.

Several sources have claimed that Thomson does indeed chuckle about it, as though it were a mere indiscretion.


They both had elocution lessons to help eradicate their accents. They're more likely to have adopted the accents of the where they were based.


It would be nice to remember he has a Dad who took it pretty badly aswell. Trash mags had a mini hate campaign against him a couple of years back due to his alcoholism.

Regarding the public's right to know what happened to send Venebles back inside, it's not just a matter of us knowing what kind of person he is now, it's whether we have a justice system that is best serving us. There's been rumours abound for a couple of years about behaviour that was a breach of his licence. If he has indeed spent his adult life as a violent drug user, then a) the system isn't adequately protecting us, and b) the system isn't providing adequate support and rehabilitation for him.

And Will Self is a huge mark for himself that thinks inserting uncommonly used words into an argument increases the validity of his point. He made himself out almost as an expert witness because he'd "read the transcript", despite him contradicting what the officers involved in the case have stated on record several times.

Is that so? Did they disclose this information to The Sun or The Mail then?

A prejudiced person would say that probably covers about 400 of them.

You say 'sick cunt' as if it was a premeditated child murder. It was nothing of the sort. It was a couple of fucked up kids from fucked up homes who perpetrated something that started off as a 'game' and resulted in a horrific crime.
Should prison just be about punishing people? Making their time in prison as horrible as possible so that when they return to society nothing has been done to help them with the problems that landed them in prison in the first place? Yeah, chain em up! Beat them every day! Make them eat their least favourite food! The 'throw away the key' argument is banal - you can't lock people up forever. Sooner or later you're going to have to let these people back into society. Surely it's better not to have them come out angry and vengeful at the system that deprived them of their liberty, and make them more likely to repeat the crime that started the whole shitty cycle?

There's no chance either of them will be able to live a 'full, uninhibited adult life'.

I disagree, it was premeditated. They tried to abduct another child first, so it wasnt spur of the moment, and they took Bulger to a place they thought they could cover up their actions by making it look like a train hit the child. Thats not a 'game', thats a planned killing.

Premeditated in the fact that it wasn't a crime of passion. I love how people are taking snippets from rag newspapers & passing them off as fact.. Which sources? Seeing as they're unnamed the sensible person whiuld have to assume fictional ones.

Anyone claiming that the public have a right to know about where he is now, what he doing etc is a fool. How is this workable? Would this rule only apply to criminals that have had their crimes picked up by the media or can I look forward to my weekly 'yellow pages' sized book being dropped on my doorstep updating me on the thousands of criminals be sentenced/paroled/released weekly?

I don't see how knowing what he did would even do the Bulger family any good.

If he did anything even coming close to major, then he'll be locked up for good, won't he?

As for "the public"? It was fuck all to do with us.

Yeah, definitely. It's definitely not a case of bloodlust and nosiness.

I think if the parents want to know then they should be able to find out, after all they should have some rights to find out in this case.

Straw said the details will come out over time, means something serious may have happened

Do the parents in every murder case have the right to know what happens to their childs killer almost twenty years later?

God, I hope not. I'd want to string the fucker up for helping that slimy cunt Cameron into power as much as anything else...



First of all, I do believe it was premeditated for the reasons stated below your post - the kidnapping certainly was, and it's hard to imagine they had anything but evil intentions after that. Clearly we disagree on this point, but there's no way in my mind they didn't know they were doing harm to that kid.

Secondly, again we're going from one extreme to the other in the discussion of prison. As I've stated prison shouldn't be 'just' about punishing people, but nor should it be just about rehabilitation. There has to be a balance between the two. I'm not saying put them in a gulag and waterboard them every night, but in my opinion they didn't lose enough years of their personal freedom to constitute reasonable, just punishment for their crime. Whatever age they were when they committed the crime, 8 years in prison for maliciously taking a child's life in an absolute joke.

The public wants to know because we're a bunch of busybodies who buy papers that print salacious details of gory crimes. The idea that the justice system should take any notice of the public's appetite for scandal is preposterous.

Yes if he does something wrong. Why shouldn't they know?

Why should they?

Because it has nothing to do with them, that's why.

I think it does. If the Mother and Father want to know why shouldn't they know about this? Whatever you say it still has an impact on them. Its none of the publics business, no, but the two of them fought tirelessly to stop them being released early, they've been proven right, the home office has a duty to tell them why they have let their sons killer out when he clearly can't be trusted to have been. You're opinion differs from mine and I'll doubt I'll change yours, but I just feel they deserve to know.

In what way have they been proven right? Despite the fervent press speculation, nobody knows why Jon Venables was recalled to prison. He may have been involved in a 'violent altercation' or he might have innocently failed to report to his supervising officer as required. Nobody knows!

While I can understand why Jamie Bulger's family might want to know the reason behind Venables's recall to prison, I can't understand what purpose it would serve to tell them.

Leon McEwan claimed Thompson had bragged that he had got off lightly, telling him: 'You could have killed someone and only got eight.'

JAMES Bulger's killer Jon Venables was thrown back in jail over an allegation that he committed a sickening sex crime, The Sun can reveal.
The 27-year-old is expected to be brought before a court in the near future to face charges over it.

The Sun has discovered exact details of the offence, that will horrify the nation.

But government lawyers last night threatened to gag us with an injunction if we revealed it in full.



Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/...l#ixzz0hNSlS13E

As for having the right to know where they are? DAM right i dont want my kid playing anywhere near these nutballs same with all the other perverts and child killers. I have the right to protect my child, how can i do that when im not allowed to know if a kiddy killer is living next door.

I feel the same but what are you going to do with the information? If you drive them out, they'll only become someone else's problem.
At the end of the day, you do what people have always tried to do. Look after your kids, try to know where they are, give them what you can and hope for the best.