£4m has been spent on keeping their identities secret :manson: a lot of nurses, dentists, police, teachers could be paid for with £4m :manson:

 

They should not be given protection at taxpayers expense, if that means they end up getting done over by vigilantes then $h!t happens but taxpayers money should not be spent protecting them

This is coming from an incredibly biased source here so I'd take that with a pinch of salt :lol: I doubt it costs £4000000 to keep the identities of two people a secret ;)

Why would he be a danger to his children? Don't you think he regrets what he did in his stupid childish actions?

Tyron i'm not being funny but you really begin to show your age here. You say "his childish actions" but they WEREN'T childish actions, the phrase childish actions is meant as if EVERY child does it, and you obviously know that very, very few kids his age would take a defenceless toddler, insert batteries into his rear end, beat him senseless and then lay him on train tracks to die. You seem to view this as some sort of norm like a child back-answering or something? :mellow:

Oh come off it! :rolleyes: I doubt anybody who is 10 knows clearly what they were doing, and a 10 year old would not seek actively to murder - it is hard enough for an adult to murder, but do you not think a 10 year old would be FAR more adversely affected, especially considering a 10 year old isn't even fully mentally developed yet?

I honestly can't believe some of the things you've said in this thread Tyron. :o

 

I think at the age of TEN a child knows whether he's beating someone senseless with bricks with severe blows to the head, I guarantee a child of 10 knows that when someone cries and bleeds it isn't a positive reaction, and I think the crux of this argument is if it was YOUR child Tyron I would like to see you still react like this. God knows if this was my child that they had brutally murdered I wouldn't want them to marry, I wouldn't want them to live a normal life, I would want them to be tortured endlessly until they died themselves, (and like Jamie's mother) I wouldn't stop until I could track them down and kill them myself, aged 10 or not, they ARE aware of their actions and are still held accountable.

I honestly can't believe some of the things you've said in this thread Tyron. :o

 

I think at the age of TEN a child knows whether he's beating someone senseless with bricks with severe blows to the head, I guarantee a child of 10 knows that when someone cries and bleeds it isn't a positive reaction, and I think the crux of this argument is if it was YOUR child Tyron I would like to see you still react like this. God knows if this was my child that they had brutally murdered I wouldn't want them to marry, I wouldn't want them to live a normal life, I would want them to be tortured endlessly until they died themselves, (and like Jamie's mother) I wouldn't stop until I could track them down and kill them myself, aged 10 or not, they ARE aware of their actions and are still held accountable.

I'm not defending what he's done, but do you think that a 10 year old is just as aware and as sensible in his actions as someone of your age? I am not trying to say that it is something that every child would do, but they were actions that were affected by his age - do you think he would have done exactly the same thing had he been more mature? I do think age has a large part to play in this, and Jark already gave reasoning against the argument of what we would do had Bulger been my child earlier in this thread. Do you think that Venables is still a danger to children? As much as people here may think it is wrong and that he should have served longer, Venables has served his time for his crime, and therefore has every right to get married and bear children - that may not be what is right, but that is what he has the right to do. I am certain he is still haunted to this day by what he has done, and is still being punished for what he has done by his own conscience - I am certain if he could he would turn back time and not do what he did to Bulger, but the point of the matter is that it is his right to marry. He probably has changed, and it has been shown that these people can change - look at Mary Bell for example, who has gone on to have children of her own - there is no risk in allowing him to have his own children as he poses no danger to them.

well done guys... sensible posts well put.

 

ive always had a great difficulty trying to understand this one. im all for people who have made a mistake having the oportunity to redeam themselves if they are truely repentant.

 

the bulger case however is the possible exception, god knows what went through them kids minds to make them do such a vile thing, and tbh we just dont know how remorsefull venebals and thompson are. if they ARE truely remorseful then i might be of the opinion that its time to move on. however looking at it from the bulgers view... im not sure that i could forgive them, it would hurt even today and my natural senses would be anti them.

 

this is still a subject that is unresolved with me.

 

marrying?.... would she still marry him if she knew what he had done?... no... probably not. he has 2 choices then... tell her and risk losing her, or just dont get married at all, ever, and keep quiet.

You never know. If she loves him she may STILL marry him.

there is no risk in allowing him to have his own children as he poses no danger to them.

 

How do you know that Tyron ? you don't, you might be right in what you say and any kids of his might not be at risk but even if there is a 1% chance that the kid is at risk that is 1% too high, you can't play russian roulette with a kids life Tyron, its easy for you to sit at a pc glibly pontificating that Venables is reformed and not a threat to toddlers but you don't know that and just giving him a kid in the HOPE it will be ok is bloody risky mate, too risky IMHO

I remember this case particularly well - my son is the same age as Jamie would have been and at the time when all this was in the media I was scared to let him out of my sight and didn't leave the house for days.

 

As for 10 year olds - the majority of them I would say would definately know and understand the rights and wrongs of what they doing. The majority of 10 years olds know what is real and what is fiction ..... even if they are exposed to violent games and films. But am not convinced these 2 were like the 'majority'. They obviously had deep problems - their action were premeditated, they went to the shopping centre looking for a child. Their age had nothing to do with this!

And at 10 children are the product of their home life - how much responsibilty has been apportioned to their parents?

 

Prisons exist in the belief that humans can be reformed - if not then the death penalty would still exist?

 

I am not the same person I was at 10 - and I do believe in the ability of humans to learn from their mistakes - to reform and move on.

But in my heart I wonder if their actions / crimes were just too much to reform from.

 

But we don't have access to all the facts - only access to media speculation - who knows what went on in their minds - and who knows what goes on now.

 

But this thread is about whether they should be allowed to marry - non of our business really.

 

What I find hard to believe is that we know he is getting married - but his fiance doesn't know who he is?

Surely someone will tell her? Surely he will? What kind of marriage could survive this kind of secret?

And if the media knows who she is and their every move is being watched - surely is only time before the identities are leaked and a witch hunt ensues - and even more taxpayers money get spent protecting them all over again?

 

 

He has 2 choices then... tell her and risk losing her, or just dont get married at all, ever, and keep quiet.

But that's just it. He doesn't just risk losing her - he risks her blabbing to friends or family, which means his secret identity is lost and he is in immense danger!

Oh my gosh I've read through the thread and it annoys me so much ahah.

 

CLEARLY, as Craig stated earlier, they did have both the intent to at least harm the boy so that's it. Even if it wasn't direct, they still had oblique intent in that they should have FORESEEN the consequences (which would be a virtual certainty, especially in this case), regardless of whether they wanted those consequences or not. And to say children don't know what they're doing at the age of TEN, to be fair, is absolutely ridiculous.

 

(Yeah I do study Law ahah B))

 

But yeah, I'm basically repeating what Crazychris and Vic Vega have already said so basically I agree with them (:

Well, frankly I'm of the opinion that while Thomson and Venables did commit a vile, despicable act, I do feel that they were so fukked in the head through years of depraved indifference from their parents, neglect and quite possibly physical and emotional abuse, they were two ticking timebombs just waiting to happen... They were not born monsters Craig, they were created..... Mary Bell as far as I know never committed another criminal offence, neither did those two girls in New Zealand who were the subjects of the fanstastic Peter Jackson film "Heavenly Creatures", so what makes you think these two will ever again...? No, I really do think that this was a horrifying freak occurrence committed by two incredibly psychologically damaged kids living in a fantasy world.... Frankly, I'd've sent down their so-called "parents" for at least as long as Venables and Thomson for their utter neglect and indifference to their children, neglect and abuse creates monsters like Thomson and Venables, simple as...

 

And, Craig, as for you saying "it never enters my mind to kill someone", well, that's totally bogus for a start, YOU openly admit that you go around the streets carrying a fukkin' KNIFE ffs, apparently for "protection", so frankly, you dont really have a right to talk about anyone else's actions IMO. Given the right (or wrong) set of circumstances you would kill someone, dont pretend you wouldn't mate, everyone is capable of killing, we just dont like to admit the fact to ourselves so it makes it easy for us to create monsters out of two neglected and abused kids and make out like they're some sort of "other".... "Oh, I could never do anything like that....". Rubbish, we are ALL capable of it, at the end of the day, human beings are just animals who read books and spout philosophy....

 

But I do think the guy should tell his fiancee who he is and what he did, if the relationship is strong enough, it will survive, but it definitely wont survive if he doesn't tell her and she finds out through a third party......

And, Craig, as for you saying "it never enters my mind to kill someone", well, that's totally bogus for a start, YOU openly admit that you go around the streets carrying a fukkin' KNIFE ffs, apparently for "protection", so frankly, you dont really have a right to talk about anyone else's actions IMO. Given the right (or wrong) set of circumstances you would kill someone, dont pretend you wouldn't mate

 

Knife :unsure:

 

I carry a knuckle duster on nights out incase I get attempted robbed / mugged but that is purely for personal protection, you would be right in what you say if I went out with the knuckle duster with the INTENT of attacking people with it but I don't, it is there purely for personal protection, if I was ATTACKED I would use it in a heartbeat but if I was not attacked then I would have no intent whatsoever to use it

 

Me having a knuckle duster is no different from a woman carrying mace / pepper spray incase she is attacked etc, doesn't make a woman an evil person or capable of evil

 

The only circumstances in which I would be capable of killing is if my life was in danger (i.e a burglar entered my home) but even then that is purely self preservation not pre meditated murder like in the case of the Bulger killers

Well, frankly I'm of the opinion that while Thomson and Venables did commit a vile, despicable act, I do feel that they were so fukked in the head through years of depraved indifference from their parents, neglect and quite possibly physical and emotional abuse, they were two ticking timebombs just waiting to happen... They were not born monsters Craig, they were created..... Mary Bell as far as I know never committed another criminal offence, neither did those two girls in New Zealand who were the subjects of the fanstastic Peter Jackson film "Heavenly Creatures", so what makes you think these two will ever again...? No, I really do think that this was a horrifying freak occurrence committed by two incredibly psychologically damaged kids living in a fantasy world.... Frankly, I'd've sent down their so-called "parents" for at least as long as Venables and Thomson for their utter neglect and indifference to their children, neglect and abuse creates monsters like Thomson and Venables, simple as...

 

Poverty, bad parenting, being abused or whatever is not an excuse for committing any sort of crime let alone murder

 

There are 2 million kids in this country living below the poverty line but how many of them have gone off and abducted and tortured toddlers ?

 

You have to have an evil gene in you to even contemplate such an act let alone carry one out

 

I just can't accept that poverty, bad parenting or whatever can create the conditions in which someone can torture and kill a 3 year old, like I said there are millions of kids in Britain who were bought up in as tough if not tougher conditions than Thompson and Venables and they haven't done what these 2 did

Me having a knuckle duster is no different from a woman carrying mace / pepper spray incase she is attacked etc, doesn't make a woman an evil person or capable of evil

:lol:! It is rather different, what you carry could violently hurt somebody and leave physical scars! Everybody is capable of evil! It just comes more naturally to some than others. Some put evil into action when not necessary.

Me having a knuckle duster is no different from a woman carrying mace / pepper spray incase she is attacked etc, doesn't make a woman an evil person or capable of evil

 

Well, erm, yes it is actually mate.... I've never heard of anyone being killed by having pepper spray used on them, whereas there are plenty of examples of people being beaten to a bloody pulp by Knuckle Dusters... Knuckle Dusters are nasty tools used mainly by gangsters, drug dealers and other assorted Chav scum.... Nice company you're keeping there mate..... :P Knuckle Dusters only have one purpose mate, to cause SERIOUS aggravated injury or death, Mace and Pepper Spray is purely defensive.....

 

:lol:! It is rather different, what you carry could violently hurt somebody and leave physical scars! Everybody is capable of evil! It just comes more naturally to some than others. Some put evil into action when not necessary.

 

Big difference though mate, I carry a knuckle duster if I go out at night incase I am attacked, Thompson and Venables carried iron bars with the intention of attacking a child, they tried to abduct another child in the same shopping centre so they went out equipped with iron bars to abduct kids

 

Self defence (me) and pre meditated intent (them) are polar opposites

 

If I killed a mugger with my knuckle duster I would go down for manslaughter not murder

Big difference though mate, I carry a knuckle duster if I go out at night incase I am attacked, Thompson and Venables carried iron bars with the intention of attacking a child, they tried to abduct another child in the same shopping centre so they went out equipped with iron bars to abduct kids

 

The law aint gonna see it like that though mate... Carrying Concealed Weapon = Premeditation as far as the law is concerned.... The carrying of ANY concealed weapon is a criminal offence whether for self-protection or not.... And quite rightly too.... I dont care what your reasoning is, any Tom, Dick or Harry could say "it's only for my protection honest Guv".... Dont you live in some small town outside of London...? Well, I routinely walk the "crime ridden streets" of the Capital without feeling the need for going around "tooled up"....

The law aint gonna see it like that though mate... Carrying Concealed Weapon = Premeditation as far as the law is concerned.... The carrying of ANY concealed weapon is a criminal offence whether for self-protection or not.... And quite rightly too.... I dont care what your reasoning is, any Tom, Dick or Harry could say "it's only for my protection honest Guv".... Dont you live in some small town outside of London...? Well, I routinely walk the "crime ridden streets" of the Capital without feeling the need for going around "tooled up"....

 

I have never been attacked or robbed on any nights out or even attempted to be attacked so I have had no need to use it but being of a paranoid nature that I am, I have a very paranoid personality it is reassuring to me that I have some "back up" incase things went wrong, not that it has in all the years I have been on nights out or likely to either but with the type of personality I have and I will admit I have a very paranoid nature having "back up" suits me although I sincerely hope I never have to use it

 

I live in the borough of Croydon so yeah its not Brixton or Streatham etc

the problem with this (has already been mentioned) we just dont know the facts, we dont know wether or not he is reformed, wether or notit was a freak occurance, wether or not he truely is repentant, we just dont know. therefore anything we might say is pure conjecture.

The point of the thread really was to ask if you think his bride to be should know what he did. Starting a marriage with a secret like that. Unbelievable.