Well it's nice to know that you'd like the UK to join Iran and Saudi Arabia as the only countries to execute juveniles. Oh, and it's against international law but perhaps that doesn't bother you either.

 

It won't happen because the death penalty is against EU law, so perhaps Chris should go to Iran...

I think we're going to have to acknowledge it's extremely likely the sex charge claims are true. The government apparently tried to stop the Sun publishing the claims (which they seemingly didn't do with the claims of him having a fight earlier in the week), and reading between the lines of what Jack Straw said earlier, he pretty much confirmed it. Still... firstly, innocent until proven guilty. Secondly, even if it turned out Venables had been recalled because he'd murdered someone else, I'd still stand by my support to release him in the first place all day long. The ends don't justify the means, and I'm always going to believe that a child can be rehabilitated even for the most 'evil' of actions (particularly a child who had such a corrupted upbringing). And in case people have forgotten, Thompson hasn't been re-arrested, and there's no reason to think he isn't living a virtuous life.

Oh I give up. :rolleyes: He murdered a 2 year-old boy. Carry on defending them if you like.

 

I'm defending/excusing them for what they did, and I'm not going to make any apologies for it. Of course it's a tragedy for everyone that a two-year-old died needlessly, but not every crime is as black-and-white as having good guys and big bad villains.

I'm defending/excusing them for what they did,

 

 

Tell that to Denise and Ralph Bulger then. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You're failing to make the distinction between finding a potential explanation for what Thompson and Venables did and justifying it. Whether you're doing that because you're stupid or drawing attention to yourself or just plain obstinate I don't know.

 

James Bulger probably received more love and affection from his parents in his tragically short life than Thompson and Venables received between them in their first ten years of life. That doesn't mean what they did was justified in any way. It just helps to provide a possible explanation for why they did it.

I've read elsewhere what he's allegedly done. Awful beyond belief.

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!

Edited March 6, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

Tell that to Denise and Ralph Bulger then. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

Again, like I said, not every crime is as black-and-white as having good guys and bad guys. It's a natural human instinct to want someone to blame when a tragedy happens to your family, but that doesn't mean the rest of us throw out all objectivity and have such ridiculous hyper-sensitive reactions. And, to be quite blunt, even if Venables and Thompson were hanged then it still isn't going to bring James back to life.

I've read elsewhere what he's allegedly done. Awful beyond belief.

What has he apparently done? Link?

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

People don't excuse it because of their age. They EXPLAIN it because of their backgrounds.

 

While other kids from poor backgrounds had to struggle on without state pampering (funnily enough they didn't feel the need to slaughter children)

:manson: It wasn't having an UNDERPRIVILEGED upbringing that caused it, it was having a downright abusive and amoral one!

Looking at child pornography apparently...undoubtedly a disgusting crime, but I don't particularly see how that would have been an expected follow-up? :/ Being a child-killer =/= being a paedophile.

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:

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:

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

 

The NOTW is the Sunday sister paper to The Sun isn't it?

 

Norma

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

 

:rolleyes:

 

It is published by News Group Newspapers of News International, itself a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, and is the Sunday sister paper of The Sun.

 

Anyway as for this rather nasty media circus and especially the vile Carole Malone I'm reminded of this superb analysis to an old media tsunami by today's answer to George Orwell that is just as appropriate now.

 

 

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

 

:lol:

 

Where did you take that IQ Test?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/07/j...fessed-identity

 

Very interesting article...I'd say it's apparent he's regressed to a state of self-loathing and depression. I'm less inclined to believe the safety nets which Chris and the tabloids trumpeted actually existed, because if they had something would've been done before now, if the reports are correct...

I have kept out of the discussion up until now until more details about what he has (allegedly) done to result him being returned to jail. Now if it is as serious as being reported, that is looking at images of child abuse (as in most of today’s papers and the BBC website), then surely he should be treated like any other adult who indulges in these offences. And make no mistake this is a criminal offence where you can and do get a custodial sentence, and put on the sex offenders list for 5 years. So if it is correct then he should be charged and appear in Court.

 

A lot of people in this thread are giving him the benefit of a very bad start in life, and I understand this, but he has had a lot of therapy and money spent on giving him a better chance to change than most criminals get, these are the same people who bang on about paedos like Gary Glitter, and kiddie fiddlers should be strung up.

 

Now the problems begin. What name does he get charged under? Well he can’t be charged under Venables as it will not be seen as a fair trial and there will be a witch-hunt. So does he get charged under his current name, which apparently is now in the public domain, certainly in prison and where he lived and worked? Unless he gets tried in another location, and given yet another identity it will leak out. But also he can’t not be tried just because of who he is, as he is not above the law. Everyone is subject to the law of the land.

 

But bear in mind the fact that he is now 27, an adult who had a job, managed to keep out of trouble since he was released at 18, he has brought this down upon himself. If no one knew who he was and no way of finding out, apart from him letting it slip, then either his mental state has deteriorated so badly or he has a death wish, maybe his safest option would be to be locked up for good, for his own protection.

 

I remember the original event at the time and I was like most people absolutely horrified at what happened. As the case went through the court details of their terrible upbringing led me to believe why it might have happened, although it was still a terrible crime. If an 18 year old had done it, we would all be agreed they should go to prison for a very long time. But seeing as they were children themselves some people made allowances. I think if you were a parent you might, just might have a different opinion of them than if you weren’t a parent. The thought of this terrible murder happening to your child would be so bad; I doubt you would ever have a normal life again.

 

Thompson who was described as “psychopathic” seems by all accounts to have been rehabilitated, so that no one knows who he is. If this is true then the system works in some cases, but not in every case.

 

So if it turns out all along he has done nothing more than punch a workmate then he should be released and set free. Whether he should get a new expensive identity, well that is another thing.

 

If however it is of a serious sex offence then he should be treated like any other 27 year old male and take the consequences. He cannot hide under I am only 10, I had a poor childhood reason today, as he has had 17 years to learn new life skills, and to grow up. He has had every opportunity. If other prisoners set about him well that is his problem, he is just like any other prisoner in jail who has murdered a child, or is into child porn or abuse. That goes with the territory, we all know people like Ian Huntley get beat up in prison. I am sure the wardens will do their very best to protect him from other inmates.

 

As a civilised Country we have given him a chance to reform, if he has failed to grasp it then how many more chances does he deserve?

"Now the problems begin. What name does he get charged under? Well he can’t be charged under Venables as it will not be seen as a fair trial and there will be a witch-hunt. So does he get charged under his current name, which apparently is now in the public domain, certainly in prison and where he lived and worked? Unless he gets tried in another location, and given yet another identity it will leak out. But also he can’t not be tried just because of who he is, as he is not above the law. Everyone is subject to the law of the land."

 

 

This question was asked a lot on the very long Digital Spy thread. A guy posting claiming to be in the legal profession said he'll be tried as Jon Venables, no question. Having a new identity doesn't mean that's your real name now for purposes like this as it's merely an alias for protection purposes. It's like people in Witness Protection he says as they'd be tried under their real birth name too.

Edited March 7, 201015 yr by Victor Meldrew

Is it not possible to try someone anonymously? Although thinking about it, that would just make it obvious it was Venables...the media presence around the trial makes it a given though that he won't get a fair trial.