But let's be honest, if he's "only" been looking at child porn (as most reports suggest) then that's a relatively minor crime in the wide scheme of things. I'm not an expert on this area, but I do understand the standard sentence for that would probably only be a couple of years maximum (and probably placed on the Sex Offenders' Register) And I am of the opinion that being a paedophile itself isn't reprehensible - I believe that being sexually attracted to children is an illness that needs to be treated. A paedophile can't help who they're attracted to any more than a gay person can. It's when paedophiles act on their desires that they become reprehensible, i.e. sexually abusing a child. Downloading child porn is inappropriately acting on their desires to an extent (it fuels disgusting p**** rings obviously), but I do believe someone who has "only" done that should be helped more than they should be punished.

 

Of course, if he's convicted of sexually abusing a child (not that I've seen any reliable reports suggesting that), then he needs to be locked up for a long time.

 

as i understand it, he was viewing catagory 4 , this involves actual abuse of a child., viewing it fuels the trade in abuse .. it isnt a victimless crime.

as i understand it, he was viewing catagory 4 , this involves actual abuse of a child., viewing it fuels the trade in abuse .. it isnt a victimless crime.

 

This is true, it's not, and he should be punished if found guilty.. But then again, in adult terms, this doesn't actually make him any different to Gary Glitter, Pete Townsend or Chris Langham does it...?

 

And, er, didn't Chris defend Glitter, even though he has actually sexually abused children, as an adult (which is vastly different to what Venables did as a 10 year old kid)...?

 

As for Denise Bulger, well, sorry, but why the fukk should she be getting special visits from the Justice Secretary...?? I mean, does the Justice Sec visit EVERY relative of the victim of child murder, or any other kind of murder....? Do they fukk....... -_-

 

And, just to play Devil's Advocate here, we seem to forget that the crime that Thomson and Venables committed was actually one of opportunity, Jamie Bulger was ON HIS OWN, without Parental supervision outside a shop in a busy shopping centre, now sorry, but what person in their right mind leaves a two-year old to their own devices even for TWO MINUTES....???? This is a fact the Press seems to gloss over... Seems to me that there's just as much parental neglect in this case as there was with Maddie McCann being left unsupervised in a hotel room in a foreign country...

 

ie, parents doing stupid, unthinking sh!te which ends up putting their kids in danger.... I honestly wonder just why the fukk some people even have children if they cant be arsed with them, I really do, is it any wonder we seem to be bringing up generations of totally fukked-up individuals who need prescription anti-depressants or fukkin' psychiatrist visits in order to be able to function.... <_<

 

Is it any wonder we're bringing up generations of Chavs and Feral kids who see Criminality, Scrounging off the State and being "serial sprog-droppers" as a genuine occupational option...?

This is true, it's not, and he should be punished if found guilty.. But then again, in adult terms, this doesn't actually make him any different to Gary Glitter, Pete Townsend or Chris Langham does it...?

 

And, er, didn't Chris defend Glitter, even though he has actually sexually abused children, as an adult (which is vastly different to what Venables did as a 10 year old kid)...?

 

As for Denise Bulger, well, sorry, but why the fukk should she be getting special visits from the Justice Secretary...?? I mean, does the Justice Sec visit EVERY relative of the victim of child murder, or any other kind of murder....? Do they fukk....... -_-

 

And, just to play Devil's Advocate here, we seem to forget that the crime that Thomson and Venables committed was actually one of opportunity, Jamie Bulger was ON HIS OWN, without Parental supervision outside a shop in a busy shopping centre, now sorry, but what person in their right mind leaves a two-year old to their own devices even for TWO MINUTES....???? This is a fact the Press seems to gloss over... Seems to me that there's just as much parental neglect in this case as there was with Maddie McCann being left unsupervised in a hotel room in a foreign country...

 

ie, parents doing stupid, unthinking sh!te which ends up putting their kids in danger.... I honestly wonder just why the fukk some people even have children if they cant be arsed with them, I really do, is it any wonder we seem to be bringing up generations of totally fukked-up individuals who need prescription anti-depressants or fukkin' psychiatrist visits in order to be able to function.... <_<

 

Is it any wonder we're bringing up generations of Chavs and Feral kids who see Criminality, Scrounging off the State and being "serial sprog-droppers" as a genuine occupational option...?

 

 

ay up stranger! lol

 

gotta fully agree with you here. there MUST have been neglect otherwise they couldnt have abducted him!

 

and yes, if thompson is guilty of viewing child porn then he IS as bad as glitter, langham, townsend.

Absolutely disgusting that Scott tries to pin some of the blame on the mother. :angry: FFS and Rob agrees with him! :rolleyes: Maybe he was in the shop with her but ran out whilst she was being served. Anyway if he was outside that still didn't give these two vermin the right to lead him away. No way is she to blame. The two that took him were. It's like saying burglars aren't to blame at all as you left a window an inch open. I know Scott has some bizarre opinions but this beats the lot of them. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Edited March 12, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

I like how Chris glossed over the point about defending Gary Glitter and every other valid point Scott made :kink:

Absolutely disgusting that Scott tries to pin some of the blame on the mother. :angry: FFS and Rob agrees with him! :rolleyes: Maybe he was in the shop with her but ran out whilst she was being served. Anyway if he was outside that still didn't give these two vermin the right to lead him away. No way is she to blame. The two that took him were. It's like saying burglars aren't to blame at all as you left a window an inch open. I know Scott has some bizarre opinions but this beats the lot of them. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

Sorry but in my book anyone who goes to use that lowlife PR parasite Max Clifford to manipulate sympathy in the media loses all sympathy I have for them.

 

That is why Jack Straw got involved to keep the might of Max Clifford on Labour's side in the upcoming General Election.

I like how Chris glossed over the point about defending Gary Glitter and every other valid point Scott made :kink:

 

 

As far as I'm concerned Gary Glitter will never be as bad as these pieces of scum as he never murdered anyone.

Sorry but in my book anyone who goes to use that lowlife PR parasite Max Clifford to manipulate sympathy in the media loses all sympathy I have for them.

 

That is why Jack Straw got involved to keep the might of Max Clifford on Labour's side in the upcoming General Election.

He got involved because he knew what the press would say if he refused to meet her. He shouldn't have had to put aside time to see her but he really didn't have much choice.

Absolutely disgusting that Scott tries to pin some of the blame on the mother. :angry: FFS and Rob agrees with him! :rolleyes: Maybe he was in the shop with her but ran out whilst she was being served. Anyway if he was outside that still didn't give these two vermin the right to lead him away. No way is she to blame. The two that took him were. It's like saying burglars aren't to blame at all as you left a window an inch open. I know Scott has some bizarre opinions but this beats the lot of them. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

the point stands.... if she was looking after him properly then it would never have happened. no one said that it gives them the right to abduct him...

 

As far as I'm concerned Gary Glitter will never be as bad as these pieces of scum as he never murdered anyone.

 

you are a complete arsehole.... try talking or listening to accounts of kids who have been RAPED by old perverts like glitter their lives have been ruined and you think thats ok because they werent killed?... and again your thick head doesnt address the point, WHY did they act like they did, there is a reason and the intelligent way to prevent it happening again is to identify the reason and treat that. thank god not all of us live in the dark ages.... mind you if we did there would be no free handouts for professional skivers... no work = no food.

I don't think James's mother is in any way responsible. By all accounts, James was only away from her for between 30 seconds and 1 minute, and I don't think it's impossible that she wouldn't've noticed him slipping away in a crowded shop. Also, even though I disagree with her that she has a right to know what Venables has done, I do understand why she's saying the things she is.

 

 

and again your thick head doesnt address the point, WHY did they act like they did, there is a reason and the intelligent way to prevent it happening again is to identify the reason and treat that.

 

I do agree with this. Chris isn't even making an attempt to understand why Venables and Thompson acted like they did. He keeps dismissing their upbringings as simply "under-privileged", but the situations were far more complex than that. I had an under-privileged upbringing, but I still had responsible parents who taught me right and wrong and gave me a sense of the world, and that's something Thompson and Venables didn't have. Thompson's family was completely dysfunctional. His father had abandoned them, and the mother drank heavily and seemingly didn't give a toss about the welfare of her kids at all. He had older brothers who regularly viciously beat him up, which gave him a distorted view of how the world/society worked. For Venables, although his parents were seemingly a bit more caring, he had two young siblings who had severe learning difficulties (so obviously took up much of the parents' attention) and his parents' relationship was extremely erratic. Some of his behaviour in school also indicated he had psychological problems.

I don't think James's mother is in any way responsible. By all accounts, James was only away from her for between 30 seconds and 1 minute, and I don't think it's impossible that she wouldn't've noticed him slipping away in a crowded shop. Also, even though I disagree with her that she has a right to know what Venables has done, I do understand why she's saying the things she is.

.

 

strongly disagree danny, as a parent its your responsibility to watch over your child every waking minute, accident happen in an instant so a responsible parent HAS to have eyes in the back of their head at all times. it might be unpalatable to some, but a portion of the blame lies at HER door and i reckon her ott rantings recently are because she wants to cover that fact up. shift the blame..

According to today's NOTW he won't face a trial as the new charges are reportedly being dropped. Disgusting.

According to today's NOTW he won't face a trial as the new charges are reportedly being dropped. Disgusting.

Why is it 'disgusting' if the charges are being dropped you absolute moron? :manson:

Why is it 'disgusting' if the charges are being dropped you absolute moron? :manson:

 

 

Erm so it's okay that he gets away with it? :rolleyes: Great. Anyway the Parole Board could still jail him for up to 10 years. Make that 35 years and many many people will be very happy. Better still let Ralph Bulger have 10 minutes alone with him. ;)

Edited March 14, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

Erm so it's okay that he gets away with it? :rolleyes: Great. Anyway the Parole Board could still jail him for up to 10 years. Make that 35 years and many many people will be very happy. Better still let Ralph Bulger have 10 minutes alone with him. ;)

How does dropping the charges necessarily mean that he 'gets away with it'? :manson: Have you not stopped to consider in your thick skull a slight mitigating factor called LACK OF EVIDENCE?

 

What precisely could they jail him for, if the charges of him doing something wrong have been dropped?

How does dropping the charges necessarily mean that he 'gets away with it'? :manson: Have you not stopped to consider in your thick skull a slight mitigating factor called LACK OF EVIDENCE?

 

What precisely could they jail him for, if the charges of him doing something wrong have been dropped?

 

 

Well according to the NOTW today he can be jailed for breaking the terms of his licence and it's thought it'll be up to 10 years. It's to go before a Parole Board panel next and it's said to be very unlikely that they'll just release him. Remember he's broken it several times, entering Merseyside again, taking drugs.

 

From NOTW online.

 

EVIL Jon Venables will escape prosecution for child porn offences but could still spend TEN YEARS in jail without trial.

 

That is how long the powerful parole board could cage him for breaching the conditions of his release on licence.

 

The News of the World has learned that Justice Secretary Jack Straw is being pushed by senior advisors to take the "easier option" of leaving the Venables case in the hands of parole chiefs.

 

The alternative is a trial which could blow Venables' cover if he has to face charges of possession of Category Four material - one of the worst levels of child porn.

 

A source told us: "There is a drive to persuade the Justice Secretary and the Crown Prosecution Service not to charge Venables as it would provide everyone with the easier option to manage.

 

"However there is a strong feeling that this is too little too late.

 

"Mr Straw should have taken a harder line from the start but now the genie is out of the bottle, causing a frenzy which is proving a nightmare to keep a lid on."

 

Venables was thrown back in jail nearly three weeks ago after police allegedly found child porn images on his laptop, breaching his parole conditions over the 1993 murder of two-year-old James Bulger in Bootle, Merseyside.

 

 

Edited March 14, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

Well according to the NOTW today he can be jailed for breaking the terms of his licence and it's thought it'll be up to 10 years. It's to go before a Parole Board panel next and it's said to be very unlikely that they'll just release him. Remember he's broken it several times, entering Merseyside again, taking drugs.

I somehow doubt they'll imprison him for 10 years for taking drugs and entering Merseyside.

Well according to the NOTW today he can be jailed for breaking the terms of his licence and it's thought it'll be up to 10 years. It's to go before a Parole Board panel next and it's said to be very unlikely that they'll just release him. Remember he's broken it several times, entering Merseyside again, taking drugs.

 

From NOTW online.

 

EVIL Jon Venables will escape prosecution for child porn offences but could still spend TEN YEARS in jail without trial.

 

That is how long the powerful parole board could cage him for breaching the conditions of his release on licence.

 

The News of the World has learned that Justice Secretary Jack Straw is being pushed by senior advisors to take the "easier option" of leaving the Venables case in the hands of parole chiefs.

 

The alternative is a trial which could blow Venables' cover if he has to face charges of possession of Category Four material - one of the worst levels of child porn.

 

A source told us: "There is a drive to persuade the Justice Secretary and the Crown Prosecution Service not to charge Venables as it would provide everyone with the easier option to manage.

 

"However there is a strong feeling that this is too little too late.

 

"Mr Straw should have taken a harder line from the start but now the genie is out of the bottle, causing a frenzy which is proving a nightmare to keep a lid on."

 

Venables was thrown back in jail nearly three weeks ago after police allegedly found child porn images on his laptop, breaching his parole conditions over the 1993 murder of two-year-old James Bulger in Bootle, Merseyside.

 

you are without doubt the most idiotic moron ive ever met on an internet forum.

 

why do you read comics like the news of the world? oh yeah, they are ainmed at morons with no brain, thats how they make their money, out of idiots who chose to read drivel.

 

IF the case has been dropped, why do you think it has been? on what grounds?..oh yes, perhaps he ISNT GUILTY of any misdomeanour, or possibly he wont get a fair trial because morons like you read the gutter press.

 

i wish i could ban you from this site, but on the other hand you are mildly entertaining, an example of how idiotic the public can be.

I never read the NOTW actually Rob. Saw someone else's on the conveyor belt whilst waiting to pay in Sainsbury's.

I never read the NOTW actually Rob. Saw someone else's on the conveyor belt whilst waiting to pay in Sainsbury's.

Erm...

 

News Of The World columnist Carole Malone tells it like it is and what most people are thinking.

 

IS anyone actually surprised that James Bulger's killer, Jon Venables, is in jail? I'm not.

 

Because while I believe people CAN change - I don't believe in miracles.

 

I covered the James Bulger trial back in 1993 and heard in hellish detail what Venables and Robert Thompson did to that little lad. And trust me - it was always going to take more than eight years of cushy rehab to turn them into anything resembling decent human beings.

 

Because while people might excuse what they did because of their age (they were ten) the fact is, they targeted James Bulger.

 

Then they led this trusting little boy to a remote spot where they battered him, hammered his head with bricks and kicked him till he was pulp.

 

They did other things too, so gross, so heinous, that the details were never printed. Then when it was over they put his bloodied, partially-clothed little body on a railway line where it was sliced in two by a train.

Hellish

 

And to this day they've never been punished for it - until this week when Venables got a taste of what punishment might actually be like when he spent his first ever night in an adult jail, terrified other inmates might suss out who he is.

 

But what's happened is 100 per cent down to this government's useless rehabilitation policies and those so-called "experts" and ministers who, ten years ago, insisted these boys were fit for release.

 

It's because of these idiots that after just eight years in secure children's units, where no expense was spared to turn Jon Venables into a decent human being, he and Thompson were freed on licence.

 

Yes, they'd had a hellish start in life but in the short time they were in those units millions were spent on their every need - physical, emotional and educational.

 

While other kids from poor backgrounds had to struggle on without state pampering (funnily enough they didn't feel the need to slaughter children), Venables was having cookery classes, trips to Man Utd and elocution lessons. He rode scramble bikes, had free holidays and his room was kitted out with the latest TV and computer equipment.

 

And then, just as they turned 18, we were told by some more "experts" that the boys were "rehabilitated" and ready to go out into the world. Well, Venables patently wasn't. He's now a violent thug who completely lost it with a workmate.

 

He also has drug and anger problems and he regularly flouts the terms of his licence. Yet STILL this government refuses to tell us - or James's parents - the precise reason he was re-arrested. Why are Venables' rights more important than theirs?

 

And why won't the government tell if, as has been suggested, it was for something "sexual" and very serious. Maybe because that would mean the experts who freed him were incompetent fools and that New Labour's much vaunted rehab programmes are not just dead in the water - but dangerous.

 

Of course, the liberals are screaming it's the media's fault Venables will have to be given another new identity. But it isn't. It's Jon Venables' fault. HE'S the one in trouble. HE'S the one who, for years, has persistently broken the conditions of his licence.

 

And he's not a kid any more. He's a 27-year-old man. So while he was never made to take responsibility for killing James Bulger, he needs to take responsibility for what's happening to him now.

 

Rehabilitating criminals is exactly what, as a society, we should be doing. But not if rehab equals an easy ride. Not if it means criminals never need take responsibility. Not if it becomes a substitute for punishment.

Smirking

 

Children who kill cannot be allowed to believe what they did isn't their fault. They cannot be excused for it or be made to feel THEY are the victims, NOT the people they murdered.

 

All children, whatever their background, know the difference between right and wrong. And both Venables and Thompson knew what they did to James Bulger was wrong. I studied them at that trial. For 17 days I watched them smirk and giggle as details of their barbarism were revealed to a sickened courtroom.

 

And if now, Venables knew the public would be told of his every transgression, it might just kick him back on track. No, his identity must never be revealed because he'll be pursued by lynch mobs.

 

But the result of years of anonymity is he now thinks he's bulletproof, that whatever crime he commits the police will protect him. It's a privilege afforded to no other criminal - except, perversely, the very worst ones.

 

So what is this government's message to young thugs - the more heinous the crime you commit, the cushier life you'll have?

 

Nice one! At least it is if you're a child killer!

I thought you didn't read The Sun or believe any of it's $h!t? :kink:

LMAO. Erm that's in the NOTW. :rolleyes:

 

...