The media is full of reports today that he had a fight with a colleague at work and that he was caught with cocaine on him so in the grand scheme of things it does not sound that big a deal, certainly nothing to justify the media fuss about the case

 

 

The media is full of reports today that he had a fight with a colleague at work and that he was caught with cocaine on him so in the grand scheme of things it does not sound that big a deal, certainly nothing to justify the media fuss about the case

 

 

So you think fighting is okay then? :rolleyes: He's a violent man. Full stop. Plus he's on drugs. :angry:

So you think fighting is okay then? :rolleyes: He's a violent man. Full stop. Plus he's on drugs. :angry:

 

I am saying it happens

 

You would have to live alone on a desert island never to have had a fight by age 27, the number of people aged 27 who HAVEN'T taken any drugs in their life you could probably count on 2 hands, I am not saying either of them are right to be doing but he hasn't fiddled a child, murdered anyone, raped anyone since his release so I don't see that this matter is any real big deal tbh

I am saying it happens

 

You would have to live alone on a desert island never to have had a fight by age 27, the number of people aged 27 who HAVEN'T taken any drugs in their life you could probably count on 2 hands, I am not saying either of them are right to be doing but he hasn't fiddled a child, murdered anyone, raped anyone since his release so I don't see that this matter is any real big deal tbh

 

 

Well I've never had a fight or taken drugs and I'm 50. Decent normal men don't. ;)

Edited March 4, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

: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!

 

 

Yes but my point is they didn't deserve to be let out in to society ever again to have a normal life as they are now. Why should they be allowed to do normal things like decent law-abiding people do such as get married, have a pint in a pub, have sex, buy a CD etc etc. They relinquished all those rights when they murdered that poor boy and nothing and no-one will change my opinion and millions of others agree with me I'm sure. People say they'r suffering as they've to live with the guilt for the rest of their lives. Give me a break. I bet they don't give James a second thought.

Edited March 4, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

Well I've never had a fight or taken drugs and I'm 50. Decent normal men don't. ;)

 

My account hasn't been hacked by a liberal do gooder I just think that given jails are already overcrowded and thousands that should be in jail are being given probation and community service instead that someone who has carried out a pretty minor offence should not be in jail when there is far more deserving cases

 

Whether Venables and Thompson should have served longer/whole life sentences is a seperate issue and not one I have the energy to get into today but jailing someone for fighting with a work colleague and doing a bit of charlie does seem like a cell is being taken up that belongs to a far more deserving case

Yes but my point is they didn't deserve to be let out in to society ever again to have a normal life as they are now. Why should they be allowed to do normal things like decent law-abiding people do such as get married, have a pint in a pub, have sex, buy a CD etc etc. They relinquished all those rights when they murdered that poor boy and nothing and no-one will change my opinion and millions of others agree with me I'm sure. People say they'r suffering as they've to live with the guilt for the rest of their lives. Give me a break. I bet they don't give James a second thought.

Because, as I've said COUNTLESS times now, what does society gain by them being locked away! Nothing! We get a net loss from not attempting to rehabilitating these people...

 

And, for the second time, the fact that millions of people MAY agree with you doesn't prove your point!

 

So you think fighting is okay then? :rolleyes: He's a violent man. Full stop. Plus he's on drugs. :angry:

And if it is true, what does it have to do with the James Bulger case? If he was THAT violent a man he would've gone into prison long before now! And the vast minority of adults in the UK are regular drug users...

Reading about the case, it seems that this 'fight' was just a case of Venables GRAPPLING with a colleague, along with allegations of drug use - as Craig said, hardly grounds for returning someone to an overcrowded prison when it would seem that they have been reformed from the 'evil characters' that they were apparently born as :rolleyes:

Reading about the case, it seems that this 'fight' was just a case of Venables GRAPPLING with a colleague, along with allegations of drug use - as Craig said, hardly grounds for returning someone to an overcrowded prison when it would seem that they have been reformed from the 'evil characters' that they were apparently born as :rolleyes:

 

I agree with that. I do wonder though, if all those people who were 'demanding' to know what he'd been returned to prison for, are not a little disappointed that this is all he was sent back for.

 

Norma

Edited March 4, 201015 yr by Norma_Snockers

I agree with that. I do wonder though, if all those people who were 'demanding' to know what he'd been returned to prison for, are not a little disappointed that this is all he was sent back for.

 

Norma

 

I have to agree if this is all he has been sent back to prison for, then the law is an ass.

I agree with that. I do wonder though, if all those people who were 'demanding' to know what he'd been returned to prison for, are not a little disappointed that this is all he was sent back for.

 

Norma

 

 

Well I'll be honest now. I'm disappointed as I hoped it was more serious so he'd be locked away now for life. Bet Denise and Ralph feel the same.

Well I'll be honest now. I'm disappointed as I hoped it was more serious so he'd be locked away now for life. Bet Denise and Ralph feel the same.

But why would you want him locked away for life when he's clearly a reformed character? :/ He's essentially not the same person anymore as the boy that committed the crime, so why should he be punished for it? At least now he's contributing to society - and, as you have yet to answer, what does society gain by locking someone away and wasting their skills when they've shown they can be reformed?

But why would you want him locked away for life when he's clearly a reformed character? :/ He's essentially not the same person anymore as the boy that committed the crime, so why should he be punished for it? At least now he's contributing to society - and, as you have yet to answer, what does society gain by locking someone away and wasting their skills when they've shown they can be reformed?

 

 

He has not paid enough and sufficiently for his crime. Simple as that. He should have been hung at 18.

These are the perks those two have reportedly enjoyed since release.

 

* Elocution lessons to lose their Liverpool accents.

* Given professional coaching into lying to cover their history (was this coaching given by Gordon Brown by any chance?)

* Personal tutors

* TV, DVD and PlayStation in every room. :angry:

* Supervised days out

* Free food or drink of their choice delivered daily. :rolleyes:

* £25 was put into their accounts for clothes, £6 for toiletries and £4 for a haircut. For each birthday they received £30 and for Christmas £40, rising to £60 once they were 16.

* Both are entitled to extra benefits if they choose not to work, to ensure neither drifts back into crime .

* officers are on call 24 hours a day in case either needs help or advice.

* In 2003, both were reportedly treated to a holiday at taxpayers' expense to keep them safe on the tenth anniversary of the toddler's horrific death.

* Not to mention the cost of new identities, plastic surgery, etc for them and their families, to keep their identities a secret!

 

 

Quite disgusting really, and they say that crime pays, looking at this list it certainly does!

 

Quite disgustingly in 2003 (under Labour Government) was the "10th Anniversary" all expenses paid trip how tasteless was that????

Edited March 4, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

He has not paid enough and sufficiently for his crime. Simple as that. He should have been hung at 18.

Why should he have been hung when he's clearly a reformed character? :manson:

 

And what's your source for all these perks? TV, DVD and Playstation in every room? Do you have a mental age of six? Yes, I'm certain they have those in the bathroom, the kitchen, etc.

 

I'll bold the ones that are to prevent vigilante 'justice':

 

* Elocution lessons to lose their Liverpool accents.

* Given professional coaching into lying to cover their history (was this coaching given by Gordon Brown by any chance?)

* Personal tutors - oh, would you rather they be released and not even attempt to provide for society?

* TV, DVD and PlayStation in every room. - I seriously pity you if you think this is true.

* Supervised days out - Days out where? They've served their time, so being supervised whilst going places would just be a matter of preventing possible vigilanteism.

* Free food or drink of their choice delivered daily. - Again, they both have jobs. I pity you if you believe they'd need this. What's the source for all of this? :wacko:

* £25 was put into their accounts for clothes, £6 for toiletries and £4 for a haircut. For each birthday they received £30 and for Christmas £40, rising to £60 once they were 16. - Well, presuming this would have been when they've been released and don't have jobs (seeing as both have jobs I doubt they'd need the benefits...), the money at the beginning would seemingly be a necessity.

* Both are entitled to extra benefits if they choose not to work, to ensure neither drifts back into crime. - Irrelevant. Neither of them are choosing not to work.

* officers are on call 24 hours a day in case either needs help or advice.

* In 2003, both were reportedly treated to a holiday at taxpayers' expense to keep them safe on the tenth anniversary of the toddler's horrific death.

- although I doubt this one is true either.

* Not to mention the cost of new identities, plastic surgery, etc for them and their families, to keep their identities a secret!

He has not paid enough and sufficiently for his crime. Simple as that. He should have been hung at 18.

:zzz:

Elocution lessons? I doubt it. If they spent they years between age 10 and 18 away from people with Liverpool accents they would lose their accent anyway.

 

Coaching to lie about their history? What's wrong with that? They were granted anonymity. If they didn't have any help with that, there would have been no point.

 

Personal tutors? If that helped them to make up for the education they had missed, what's wrong with that? Doesn't it make it more likely that they can get a job and start paying taxes?

 

TV etc? Big deal.

 

Supervised days out? Of course they need that. They could hardly be kept locked up for eight years and then released having had no contact with the outside world for half their life.

 

Free food and drink? How could they have paid for it?

 

Money into accounts? If it did happen - and I doubt it did - wouldn't that help them in the time it would take to get a job?

 

Extra benefits - the least likely of your claims

 

Officers on call - isn't that a good thing? If they use these officers, isn't that a hint that they might want to make something of the rest of their life?

 

Holiday in 2003? - if true, that can only be because of the sort of idiot who keeps baying for revenge and puts their lives at risk.

 

Cost of new identities etc. - see above

I would bet that Thompson and Venables have paid far more in tax since being released than you have ever paid Chris

 

 

I would bet that Thompson and Venables have paid far more in tax since being released than you have ever paid Chris

Precisely

I would bet that Thompson and Venables have paid far more in tax since being released than you have ever paid Chris

 

lol.. exactly what i was thinking, so just who is the bigger drain on us taxpayers?

 

as for reforming crims.... yes im all for it if it can be acheived, the problem arises though as to just ARE they reformed? i think some people are too damaged, too ill, no remorse. im not saying thompson and venables are beyond redemtion.

 

surely now his cover is blown... i mean, who gets sent to prison for a minor skirmish with a work mate even if he had abit of drugs on him.. arnt others going to put 2 and 2 together?