From BBC News.

 

One of the killers of two-year-old James Bulger is back in prison after breaching the terms of his release, the Ministry of Justice has said.

 

Jon Venables, now 27, and his friend, Robert Thompson, murdered James in Bootle, Merseyside, in 1993. Both killers were aged just 10 at the time.

 

They were given life sentences, but released in 2001 with new identities and under certain licence conditions.

 

The ministry did not detail the nature of Venables' breach of his licence.

 

Mother's 'anxiety'

 

It said in a statement: "We can confirm that Jon Venables has been recalled to custody following a breach of licence conditions.

 

"Offenders on licence are subject to strict conditions; if they breach those conditions they are subject to immediate recall."

 

Venables' solicitor at the time of his trial, Laurence Lee, told the BBC: "He could have been recalled on licence if he committed an offence, it could be that he returned to Merseyside, it could be he might have approached the family.

Jon Venables

Venables was released from custody in 2001 and given a new identity

 

"There is no evidence so far that he did any of these things."

 

Retired Det Supt Albert Kirby, who led the murder inquiry, said he was surprised Venables was back behind bars.

 

He added: "I've always thought, with regards to that particular boy, that from what we've heard over the years there was every possibility he would have avoided going back into prison."

 

A relative of Denise Fergus, James's mother, said the family had no plans to comment on Venables' return to prison at this time.

 

But Mr Kirby told BBC News he had spoken to James's mother and the news had brought "a whole load of anxiety" back to her.

 

He said: "There's always been a lot of anxiety as to where both boys are.

 

"To hear something like that this evening; it brings back to her a lot of the concerns, quite understandably, that she and any other parents in these sorts of circumstances would have."

 

'Unparalleled barbarity'

 

On 13 February 1993, Venables and Thompson abducted James from a shopping centre in Bootle and killed him on a railway line.

 

A week-long appeal followed, with CCTV footage being released of the little boy holding the hand of one of his killers as he was led out of the Strand shopping centre.

 

 

ANALYSIS

Dominic Casciani, home affairs correspondent

 

When Jon Venables walked out of prison in 2001, it was not as a free man. His release came because the Parole Board decided the public would be safe if he were allowed into the community on a licence that includes strict conditions.

 

A criminal's recall to prison is triggered by one of three circumstances. He either committed a crime, showed the signs that he was about to, or breached specific conditions imposed. Breaches can be technical, such as being out of the home at the exact start of a curfew, or far more serious, such as contacting a victim's family.

 

Venables will be told why he is back inside and he can seek a full oral hearing before the Parole Board. But with public protection being the top priority, the panel will start with the case for keeping him inside, rather than the argument for letting him out.

 

The toddler had been approached and befriended by the two boys while his mother was in a shop.

 

James's body was found by children playing on a freight railway line near Walton Lane police station.

 

He had been beaten to death with bricks and an iron bar.

 

The 10-year-old killers were arrested days later and became the youngest to be charged with murder in the 20th Century.

 

Eight months later they were convicted following a 17-day trial at Preston Crown Court and ordered to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.

 

Trial judge Mr Justice Morland told the pair they had committed a crime of "unparalleled evil and barbarity".

 

In 1999 the European Court of Human Rights decided they should not have been tried in an adult court.

 

Despite public outcry, two years later the parole board recommended their release as they "were no longer a danger to society".

 

More than 300,000 people signed a petition saying the sentence of eight years was too short.

 

Both Thompson and Venables were given new identities when they were released.

 

An order prohibiting the publication of details which could reveal their whereabouts has remained in place since their release.

 

 

Edited March 3, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

Good. Now as nearly everyone's saying on other forums today, throw away the key and leave him inside until the day he dies. They were talking to random Merseysiders for Radio 1's Newsbeat and the anger, righteous in my opinion, against these two seems as strong as ever.

 

Just heard on ITV News that even the Home Secretary is thinking we should know why he's been returned to jail. So why doesn't he tell us then? :wacko:

Edited March 3, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

Just heard on ITV News that even the Home Secretary is thinking we should know why he's been returned to jail. So why doesn't he tell us then? :wacko:

 

They both have new identities and it could be due to the "law" that the ministry cannot reveal why under any circumstances. I reckon that he tried to enter Merseyside or possibley tried to contact his family. I don't even think he would even dare to commit any horrific crime. But I'm glad he is behind bars.

 

RIP Baby James x

Where are the bleeding heart Liberal do-gooders now then?????

 

Oh, dear they seem to have lost their tongue. Or maybe it is because they were wrong in the first place and don't want to admit it.

Where are the bleeding heart Liberal do-gooders now then?????

 

Oh, dear they seem to have lost their tongue. Or maybe it is because they were wrong in the first place and don't want to admit it.

Oh dear, here we go again. Descending to name calling already.

 

In almost any other western country the two boys would have been below the age of criminal responsibility and would not have been charged at all. Even in this country, an adult with a mental age of nine or ten would be unlikely to face a murder charge.

From BBC News.

 

They were given life sentences, but released in 2001 with new identities and under certain licence conditions.

 

Does anyone know why this happened? Was it anything to do with us having a nappy wearing, dummy sucking crap government or is that all just a co-incidence. Didn't they use taxpayers money to give the two young boys these new identities (or have I imagined this and misunderstood something I thought I'd heard on the news at the time). If not (and taxpayers money was used) then ain't it nice to see taxpayers money going to good use. :rolleyes: -_-

 

Perhaps second time round this now 27 year old nothing will actually serve his life sentence never to see daylight ever again (which imo is what should've happened all along).

 

EDIT: Just read this bit...doh!!!

 

In 1999 the European Court of Human Rights decided they should not have been tried in an adult court.

 

Despite public outcry, two years later the parole board recommended their release as they "were no longer a danger to society".

 

More than 300,000 people signed a petition saying the sentence of eight years was too short.

 

Pfft!!! So much for the European Court of Human Rights. They may have been tried in an adult court but considering what they did as mere 10 year olds, that was more than justified. Because they were 10 year olds shouldn't make any difference imo.

Edited March 3, 201015 yr by Hitstastic

Oh dear, here we go again. Descending to name calling already.

 

In almost any other western country the two boys would have been below the age of criminal responsibility and would not have been charged at all. Even in this country, an adult with a mental age of nine or ten would be unlikely to face a murder charge.

 

I disagree, according from what I heard on Radio5 Live in most European countries children of the ages of 8 to 12 would have spent around 15 years in detainment.

 

However, they were only detained for 8 years at Her Majesty's pleasure.

 

Still I guess that is typical of your views (and those of the social Liberal do gooders who are completely out of touch with that of the public) supporting criminals ahead of the consideration of the victims of crime.

 

This news today is yet more evidence that reform & rehabilitation does not work with evil murdering bast*rds.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Jon Venables's return to prison is a setback for the cause of prison reform and rehabilitation

The depth of the setback for the system depends on the exact reason for his recall to prison – but it is unlikely to be just a technical breach of his life licence

Alan Travis

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 March 2010 23.35 GMT

 

The recall of Jon Venables to prison is a big setback for the cause of reform and rehabilitation of child killers popularly branded as evil and beyond help. Venables and Robert Thompson have been held up as model case studies of the potential of the criminal justice system to turn around lives, even in the most difficult cases.

 

The depth of the setback for the system depends on the exact reason for his recall to prison – but it is unlikely to be just a technical breach of his life licence, such as a few missed appointments.

 

However, his continuing anonymity could mean that the nature of this offence does not come to light for some time.

 

As 10-year-old boys in 1993, Venables and Thompson were not just detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, but put through psychotherapy, education, and consistent, strict discipline. A key factor in their apparently successful rehabilitation was the desire of the most senior judges in the country to ensure that they were kept out of the "corrosive atmosphere" of the prison service's young offender institutions.

 

Lord Woolf, then lord chief justice, personally intervened to ensure they served their sentences in separate local authority secure homes.

 

"We ought not to forget that, although they committed those very serious crimes, they were first of all human beings, and secondly they were children. Children can do things when they are children that they would never do in later life when they had matured and appreciated," said Woolf when he cut the length of their sentence to eight years in 2000.

 

Michael Howard had said they should serve a minimum of 15 years - a decision described by peers as 'institutionalised vengeance' at the time.

 

When released on life licence in 2001 by the parole board, a decision approved by the then Home Secretary David Blunkett, they were declared no longer a threat to public safety.

Will reserve judgement till we find out what he has done, if he has been a model citizen and then got caught committing driving offence for example then this might be a lot of fuss about nothing but if he has done anything serious they should throw away the key this time

We can't debate this issue properly until it's revealed what he's been returned to prison for - if, for example, it was a breach of the licence by visiting someone in Merseyside, it's obviously completely different to him going back in for a criminal act...

Pfft!!! So much for the European Court of Human Rights. They may have been tried in an adult court but considering what they did as mere 10 year olds, that was more than justified. Because they were 10 year olds shouldn't make any difference imo.

Mmhm. So a 10 year old raised into nothing but violence and hatred has the same mental capabilities as an adult raised into a loving household? Don't think so somehow.

Mmhm. So a 10 year old raised into nothing but violence and hatred has the same mental capabilities as an adult raised into a loving household? Don't think so somehow.

 

 

They knew the difference between right and wrong at 10. My daughter did. They knew it was wrong to lead James away and do the vile things they did, some of which were too horrific to be reported.

They knew the difference between right and wrong at 10. My daughter did. They knew it was wrong to lead James away and do the vile things they did, some of which were too horrific to be reported.

Oh for fuck's sake :manson: Was your daughter raised into complete violence and hatred, a household of complete amorality where no physical abuse was wrong? Oh, didn't think so. They were not taught limits, values, ANYTHING. How are you to know that they knew the difference between right and wrong? They weren't taught values anywhere. They constantly got into trouble at school for violence and disobedience but were only ever suspended - something they didn't see as a punishment seeing as they were bullied. Their parents and siblings frequently abused them...where were they supposed to be getting these values from? Morals aren't innate!

 

And no, none of it was ever considered 'too horrific to be reported'. It was all reported, unless you're referring to that ridiculous chain e-mail which makes up $h!t about them putting batteries up James Bulger's anus and so on. Their crime was horrific, but they had no moral compass by which to tell them that it was!

There was never really a clear motive to why they brutally murdered James. Some sources say it was to do with Childsplay but come on - that film is lame and I there were other sources that said that they never even watched it.

Oh for fuck's sake :manson: Was your daughter raised into complete violence and hatred, a household of complete amorality where no physical abuse was wrong? Oh, didn't think so. They were not taught limits, values, ANYTHING. How are you to know that they knew the difference between right and wrong? They weren't taught values anywhere. They constantly got into trouble at school for violence and disobedience but were only ever suspended - something they didn't see as a punishment seeing as they were bullied. Their parents and siblings frequently abused them...where were they supposed to be getting these values from? Morals aren't innate!

 

And no, none of it was ever considered 'too horrific to be reported'. It was all reported, unless you're referring to that ridiculous chain e-mail which makes up $h!t about them putting batteries up James Bulger's anus and so on. Their crime was horrific, but they had no moral compass by which to tell them that it was!

 

This. They grew up in an environment where viciously abusing kids younger than you was the norm, and when you're 10, you simply don't have the ability to challenge what's going on in your immediate environment (family/friends) - you assume that's just how society works as a whole. So, because Venables and Thompson grew up in households where they were abused by older siblings, they assumed it was acceptable behaviour to do that to younger people, so saw nothing wrong with abusing Bulger in the way that they did. It's the grossly negligent parents who deserve the blame for not preparing them for the world adequately.

 

I don't quite see how how Venables going back to jail is supposed to make their release look like an embarrassment. Even if it turns out he has committed a serious crime, the ends don't justify the means, and anyway, the other one is still out there presumably living a clean life.

 

And please, let's not have the tedious complaining about spending taxpayers' money on keeping them safe. It's only because of morons who insist on "taking the law into their own hands" that we need to spend millions on their new identities and protection in the first place.

And please, let's not have the tedious complaining about spending taxpayers' money on keeping them safe. It's only because of morons who insist on "taking the law into their own hands" that we need to spend millions on their new identities and protection in the first place.

Absolutely 100% right.

Absolutely 100% right.

 

 

Yes but we wouldn't have people waiting to get them if there'd breen proper justice for James. They should have been put away at 18 for the whole of their natural lives, in a damp dark cell for 24 hours a day with no TV, DVD, Playstation etc, just bread and water. Yes, a hell of a life you may say but poor James has no life has he. Go out in Merseyside tomorrow and stop 100 people at random and ask if they should have been released when they were. Let me know what percentage say NO!!!

Edited March 3, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

There was never really a clear motive to why they brutally murdered James. Some sources say it was to do with Childsplay but come on - that film is lame and I there were other sources that said that they never even watched it.

 

 

They did it because they were evil and probably still are. You don't re-habilitate evil people. You toss the key away.

And please, let's not have the tedious complaining about spending taxpayers' money on keeping them safe. It's only because of morons who insist on "taking the law into their own hands" that we need to spend millions on their new identities and protection in the first place.

 

This is absolutely spot-on.

 

For all we know, Venables could have violated his parole conditions by merely trying to contact his family or returning to Merseyside.

 

They were children for heaven's sake ... and no child is born evil ... it is all to do with the way they're brought up and the circumstances in which they're surrounded. The kindness and care they will have been shown whilst incarcerated will have made them feel even more despair than anyone could imagine. I just cannot imagine living with the guilt that they will live with until the day they die.

 

And I'm not a bleeding-heart liberal by the way ... but this case is just so different.

 

Norma

They did it because they were evil and probably still are. You don't re-habilitate evil people. You toss the key away.

:manson::manson::manson:

 

Yeah, what a great load of use to society they are then! How about this - you REHABILITATE people brought up without morals, so they can provide for society rather than having to pay for their upkeep!

 

Oh, and two words. Mary Bell.

 

Yes but we wouldn't have people waiting to get them if there'd breen proper justice for James. They should have been put away at 18 for the whole of their natural lives, in a damp dark cell for 24 hours a day with no TV, DVD, Playstation etc, just bread and water. Yes, a hell of a life you may say but poor James has no life has he. Go out in Merseyside tomorrow and stop 100 people at random and ask if they should have been released when they were. Let me know what percentage say NO!!!

How precisely does going out and asking how many people thought they should have been released prove your point in any way?

 

Vigilante justice has shown repeatedly that it doesn't matter whether someone's served their time or not, there will inevitably be idiots waiting outside for them. What you're proposing is that all murder automatically equals a full life sentence, which is neither viable nor useful to society as a whole.

 

How do you even bloody know if they GOT any TV/DVD/Playstation? I have yet to see any prison where the prisoners spend their days playing Playstations idly for the whole of their time there. What use would have locking them up for their natural lives have provided at all?

Will reserve judgement till we find out what he has done, if he has been a model citizen and then got caught committing driving offence for example then this might be a lot of fuss about nothing but if he has done anything serious they should throw away the key this time

 

SPOT ON! ..... atn we dont know why hes in jail, SHAME on those reaching for the rope and declaring rehabilitation doesnt work before the truth is known. of course it appears to STILL be working for thompson.

 

Mmhm. So a 10 year old raised into nothing but violence and hatred has the same mental capabilities as an adult raised into a loving household? Don't think so somehow.

 

spot on.

 

Yes but we wouldn't have people waiting to get them if there'd breen proper justice for James. They should have been put away at 18 for the whole of their natural lives, in a damp dark cell for 24 hours a day with no TV, DVD, Playstation etc, just bread and water. Yes, a hell of a life you may say but poor James has no life has he. Go out in Merseyside tomorrow and stop 100 people at random and ask if they should have been released when they were. Let me know what percentage say NO!!!

 

they WERE given a fair and just trial and punishment in accordance to the law of the country...

 

 

:manson::manson::manson:

 

Yeah, what a great load of use to society they are then! How about this - you REHABILITATE people brought up without morals, so they can provide for society rather than having to pay for their upkeep!

 

Oh, and two words. Mary Bell.

 

spot on!