Jon Venables identity revealed? (merged threads)

[Walter Bishop]

I have just had a text and apparently his id has been revealed on facebook and Jack Straw having a press conference this afternoon to reveal why he is back in jail!!

 

hope he rots in hell!!!!

 

(cant get onto facebook at wok so cant confirm if this is the case.)

[Jamboy81]

I very much doubt he is allowed an account on Facebook to be honest.

[Goose Baxter]

I have just had a text and apparently his id has been revealed on facebook and Jack Straw having a press conference this afternoon to reveal why he is back in jail!!

 

hope he rots in hell!!!!

 

(cant get onto facebook at wok so cant confirm if this is the case.)

Was in the paper today that he has been caught looking at category 4 kiddie porn!!!

 

what ever that is.

 

Also in another paper its claming he is also out his face on drugs all the time and has been clubing in Liverpool. So many rumours kicking about its hard to understand what is true and what isnt.

 

What i dont get is why these people have their identity hidden!!! They are the vermin of the earth and we should be told who these people are.

[shaun.lawson]

Was in the paper today that he has been caught looking at category 4 kiddie porn!!!

 

what ever that is.

 

Also in another paper its claming he is also out his face on drugs all the time and has been clubing in Liverpool. So many rumours kicking about its hard to understand what is true and what isnt.

 

What i dont get is why these people have their identity hidden!!! They are the vermin of the earth and we should be told who these people are.

 

In order to stop others taking justice (read: retribution) into their own hands. We saw a nice little example of this a few years back when a News of the World campaign outing paedophiles led to a paediatrician's home being attacked. Sorry, but I don't fancy living in a medieval society, thankyou.

[Walter Bishop]

I very much doubt he is allowed an account on Facebook to be honest.

 

 

Doh!! Its not his page!!!! its a page dedicated to keeping him in prison and there are numerous people apparently leaving messages saying who he is and where he lives!!

[shaun.lawson]

Doh!! Its not his page!!!! its a page dedicated to keeping him in prison and there are numerous people apparently leaving messages saying who he is and where he lives!!

 

And you thought you'd perform a helpful public service by letting us all know.

[Ignoranus]

Was in the paper today that he has been caught looking at category 4 kiddie porn!!!

 

what ever that is.

 

Also in another paper its claming he is also out his face on drugs all the time and has been clubing in Liverpool. So many rumours kicking about its hard to understand what is true and what isnt.

 

What i dont get is why these people have their identity hidden!!! They are the vermin of the earth and we should be told who these people are.

 

 

He's a Hibs fan too!! Thats swings it for me. Lock him up!

[bn jambo]

In order to stop others taking justice (read: retribution) into their own hands. We saw a nice little example of this a few years back when a News of the World campaign outing paedophiles led to a paediatrician's home being attacked. Sorry, but I don't fancy living in a medieval society, thankyou.

 

 

I understand what your saying shaun, but right now, on facebook there are names and places poping up all over the place of people who have been arrested for breach of bail conditions, who are being named as venables because they have been around that area or areas with a scouse accent since venables was released.

Now these people are criminals out on licence but why should they be tarred with the brush of child killer just because of there accent and when they arrived in whatever area, yes they may have breached bail conditions but someone who may have commited a crime minor crimes right now will have to be protected by the police or moved out of area's at the tax payers expence because the government won't come out with where the child killer was living, is that fair to the people being named or the public ???

[Acey]

I don't understand why James Bulger's mother has been all over the radio / tv / papers saying that she must be told his identity.

 

Why?

[Victorian]

I don't understand why James Bulger's mother has been all over the radio / tv / papers saying that she must be told his identity.

 

Why?

his identity isn't something she is entitled to but she's certainly entitled to know every single fact of why he's been returned to prison off licence.

 

none of us can begin to imagine the torment suffered by a parent who's young child was killed by a minor who has been at liberty to get up to all sorts since.

 

she deserves to know exactly what he's been up to and what's going to happen with him now.

[Patrick Bateman]

I don't understand why James Bulger's mother has been all over the radio / tv / papers saying that she must be told his identity.

 

Why?

 

It's starting to annoy me, tbh. Whilst it's obvious that the woman is suffering, I'd like to know where she thinks she has the "right" to know where the murderers are or what they are up to. That's not part of justice.

[Boris]

his identity isn't something she is entitled to but she's certainly entitled to know every single fact of why he's been returned to prison off licence.

 

none of us can begin to imagine the torment suffered by a parent who's young child was killed by a minor who has been at liberty to get up to all sorts since.

 

she deserves to know exactly what he's been up to and what's going to happen with him now.

 

Why? Not being arsey, I just don't know what that information is going to do for her.

 

I'd need to watch last week's Question Time again, but what i remember is Will Self really nailing this argument. Worth a watch.

[blondejamtart]

Why? Not being arsey, I just don't know what that information is going to do for her.

 

I'd need to watch last week's Question Time again, but what i remember is Will Self really nailing this argument. Worth a watch.

 

 

I can understand where people are coming from on this, but none of us know what it feels like to be in her shoes (or those of James' father, for that matter). God forbid that any of us on here should ever find out what it is like to lose a child in such horrendous circumstances - as a mother, I cannot even begin to imagine what they have gone through since James died. I can only imagine that you would want to know all the details about your child's killer - whether that is right or wrong is debatable, but to me, it is wholly understandable.

[Victorian]

Why? Not being arsey, I just don't know what that information is going to do for her.

 

I'd need to watch last week's Question Time again, but what i remember is Will Self really nailing this argument. Worth a watch.

i think the crucial point is that he has been out on licence.

 

if he had served a full prison term then he's paid his debt to society and everything he does in future has nothing to do with her. the fact is though that he is still bound by the terms of his licence. she is very much entitled to see justice served satisfactorily if he's broken those terms.

 

anonymity is different of course any there are sound reasons why this must be protected.

[shaun.lawson]

I understand what your saying shaun, but right now, on facebook there are names and places poping up all over the place of people who have been arrested for breach of bail conditions, who are being named as venables because they have been around that area or areas with a scouse accent since venables was released.

Now these people are criminals out on licence but why should they be tarred with the brush of child killer just because of there accent and when they arrived in whatever area, yes they may have breached bail conditions but someone who may have commited a crime minor crimes right now will have to be protected by the police or moved out of area's at the tax payers expence because the government won't come out with where the child killer was living, is that fair to the people being named or the public ???

 

They shouldn't be. What you've described is an indictment of the ridiculous no smoke without fire world we live in. In my view, nothing should've been reported at all until after Jon Venables' trial for these latest alleged offences. If found guilty, the press could've then reported everything. Instead, they've created an absolute circus, in which the people you've mentioned above are collateral damage.

 

Power without responsibility. That's the British press I'm afraid.

 

I don't understand why James Bulger's mother has been all over the radio / tv / papers saying that she must be told his identity.

 

Why?

 

I can only assume that, quite naturally, she's still in pieces about what happened - for any mother to lose their child is about the worst thing imaginable, least of all in such horrific circumstances. And crucially, she's never found any sort of closure through justice, because she doesn't feel justice was done.

 

As an aside: part of me wonders if Jon Venables doesn't feel justice was done either. There are many reports of him confessing his real identity to others; all of which suggests to me that his guilt over what he did is too much for him, as I think it would be for pretty much anyone.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

I can understand where people are coming from on this, but none of us know what it feels like to be in her shoes (or those of James' father, for that matter). God forbid that any of us on here should ever find out what it is like to lose a child in such horrendous circumstances - as a mother, I cannot even begin to imagine what they have gone through since James died. I can only imagine that you would want to know all the details about your child's killer - whether that is right or wrong is debatable, but to me, it is wholly understandable.

 

Exactly. It's easy for us to sit here and say it's none of her business but we can't even begin to understand what she's feeling.

 

The rumours are he's a nonce and has been caught with child porn. I really hope his identity is leaked and he gets done in. A lost cause.

[milky_26]

his identity isn't something she is entitled to but she's certainly entitled to know every single fact of why he's been returned to prison off licence.

 

none of us can begin to imagine the torment suffered by a parent who's young child was killed by a minor who has been at liberty to get up to all sorts since.

 

she deserves to know exactly what he's been up to and what's going to happen with him now.

i don't agree with this at this point in time. any disclosure would be prejudicial to any case that could be brought against him. Thus most likely causing his release.

[shaun.lawson]

i don't agree with this at this point in time. any disclosure would be prejudicial to any case that could be brought against him. Thus most likely causing his release.

 

And in turn, denying any victim(s) of his latest alleged crimes justice - which would be appalling. The only way around it that I can see would involve him being tried not by jury, but a single judge: provision for which does exist in law in exceptional circumstances. And these circumstances are, quite clearly, as exceptional as they come.

[Victorian]

i don't agree with this at this point in time. any disclosure would be prejudicial to any case that could be brought against him. Thus most likely causing his release.

it's a valid point.

 

would it really be prejudicial though? if a single person who is kept well away from any future investigation and subsequent court case is told certain information, and is bound in some way to not disclose that information to anyone else, would it have a material effect?

 

i reckon there's a lot more that will happen to seriously prejudice this case than keeping her up to date with what's happened so far.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

The photo is not of him. . It's from another case in Ireland.

[milky_26]

Shaun i agree with what you say but would probably prefer 3 judges to try him. So i hope that there is no announcement of his identity or the crimes he has supposed to have committed now. It would be better served for a trial to happen quicker thatn normal and for his guilt or innocence to be decided, then details of the outcome can be released to the public.

[Gorgiewave]

I don't understand why James Bulger's mother has been all over the radio / tv / papers saying that she must be told his identity.

 

Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE INTERNET (ex-Acey) will be a good lawyer imo because he thinks logically and applies principles without heed to visceral or emotional reactions. I can only see the justification in telling her if it involved her - if he has tried to contact her, for example. A suicide or another murder arising from this seems a reasonable possibility.

[milky_26]

it's a valid point.

 

would it really be prejudicial though? if a single person who is kept well away from any future investigation and subsequent court case is told certain information, and is bound in some way to not disclose that information to anyone else, would it have a material effect?

 

i reckon there's a lot more that will happen to seriously prejudice this case than keeping her up to date with what's happened so far.

having to do this would IMO be tricky, things like this always seem to get out. So yeah tell the mother of James Bulger, but only after a trial has happened. One story i read, she said that even though she wants to know the details she doesn't want to affect any case against him for the current charges he is facing. So maybe the home secretary could make a deal/agreement with her that once the case is over she would be briefed privately about the case.

[Gorgiewave]

They shouldn't be. What you've described is an indictment of the ridiculous no smoke without fire world we live in. In my view, nothing should've been reported at all until after Jon Venables' trial for these latest alleged offences. If found guilty, the press could've then reported everything. Instead, they've created an absolute circus, in which the people you've mentioned above are collateral damage.

 

Power without responsibility. That's the British press I'm afraid.

 

 

 

I can only assume that, quite naturally, she's still in pieces about what happened - for any mother to lose their child is about the worst thing imaginable, least of all in such horrific circumstances. And crucially, she's never found any sort of closure through justice, because she doesn't feel justice was done.

 

As an aside: part of me wonders if Jon Venables doesn't feel justice was done either. There are many reports of him confessing his real identity to others; all of which suggests to me that his guilt over what he did is too much for him, as I think it would be for pretty much anyone.

I wondered if his conscious or unconscious desire was to be forgiven by somebody who knew the whole story. While he conceals his identity this can never happen, but I wonder if his desire is to confess who he is and have somebody tell him he can still be morally rehabilitated.

[Sterling Archer]

If you start letting vigilantes dish out "justice" you set a dangerous precedent.

[shaun.lawson]

I wondered if his conscious or unconscious desire was to be forgiven by somebody who knew the whole story. While he conceals his identity this can never happen, but I wonder if his desire is to confess who he is and have somebody tell him he can still be morally rehabilitated.

 

I agree. How does someone who'd done something as monstrous as that and was so notorious that a new identity had to be created for him move on? Mind you, all that wouldn't have been necessary if, as I've always believed should've happened, Venables and Thompson had never been named in the first place.

[Victorian]

having to do this would IMO be tricky, things like this always seem to get out. So yeah tell the mother of James Bulger, but only after a trial has happened. One story i read, she said that even though she wants to know the details she doesn't want to affect any case against him for the current charges he is facing. So maybe the home secretary could make a deal/agreement with her that once the case is over she would be briefed privately about the case.

well it's definitely complex. it's all very well for people to say that others should form their opinions dispassionately but a situation like this will always have people thinking emotionally.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

I agree. How does someone who'd done something as monstrous as that and was so notorious that a new identity had to be created for him move on? Mind you, all that wouldn't have been necessary if, as I've always believed should've happened, Venables and Thompson had never been named in the first place.

 

Or if they had served a proper sentence that fits the crime? By that I mean life.

[blondejamtart]

I agree. How does someone who'd done something as monstrous as that and was so notorious that a new identity had to be created for him move on? Mind you, all that wouldn't have been necessary if, as I've always believed should've happened, Venables and Thompson had never been named in the first place.

 

 

Why do you believe they shouldn't have been named, Shaun - is it purely because of their age at the time? I'd have to disagree with you on that point - I can't believe it is right that two killers convicted of one of the most heinous crimes of our age (one in which some of the details were so shocking that they have still not been revealed in public) should not be named. One of the cornerstones of our law is that justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done.

[shaun.lawson]

Or if they had served a proper sentence that fits the crime? By that I mean life.

 

I don't think the sentence was long enough either: indeed, it's pretty obvious it wasn't long enough. I would stop short at life for two children though: I think they should've served a minimum fifteen years.

 

Incidentally, for the kind of searching, cold headed analysis of this case which I think has been woefully lacking in recent days, I would recommend As If, by Blake Morrison.

[Gorgiewave]

I agree. How does someone who'd done something as monstrous as that and was so notorious that a new identity had to be created for him move on? Mind you, all that wouldn't have been necessary if, as I've always believed should've happened, Venables and Thompson had never been named in the first place.

It's an impossible thing to ask, but my own experience of bitterness, hatred and self-hatred suggests that everybody concerned would be better off if Diane Fergus made some effort to forgive the murderers. It would be better for her, of course, to not spend her life angry and bitter and that feeling does nobody any good. I know from personal experience (not as serious) that this is very difficult but that hard road might be worth the struggle for all concerned.

[Homme]

I was told yesterday that this guy was outed by colleagues working in a west lothian warehouse. Have not got a clue about the validity or when this was however but interesting to think he may be closer to home than we all think.

[shaun.lawson]

Why do you believe they shouldn't have been named, Shaun - is it purely because of their age at the time? I'd have to disagree with you on that point - I can't believe it is right that two killers convicted of one of the most heinous crimes of our age (one in which some of the details were so shocking that they have still not been revealed in public) should not be named. One of the cornerstones of our law is that justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done.

 

That's correct, yes. The judge at the time didn't want to name them, but caved in to political, public and media pressure. Justice would still have been done; they'd merely have been Boy A and Boy B. Had that happened, there'd have been no need to create new identities; and vastly reduced chances of the mob taking things into their own hands.

 

One of the most heinous crimes of our age? Absolutely. But a crime committed by two ten year old children. There's a reason why children are granted certain rights in law that grown ups are not.

[Gorgiewave]

Why do you believe they shouldn't have been named, Shaun - is it purely because of their age at the time? I'd have to disagree with you on that point - I can't believe it is right that two killers convicted of one of the most heinous crimes of our age (one in which some of the details were so shocking that they have still not been revealed in public) should not be named. One of the cornerstones of our law is that justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done.

How would it not have been being seen to be done? "Two boys killed a boy and have been sentenced by a judge to spend ten years in a secure unit. To improve their chances of being rehabilitated and to prevent justice from being seen to be done in broad daylight by self-righteous thugs, we shall not publish their names."

[blondejamtart]

It's an impossible thing to ask, but my own experience of bitterness, hatred and self-hatred suggests that everybody concerned would be better off if Diane Fergus made some effort to forgive the murderers. It would be better for her, of course, to not spend her life angry and bitter and that feeling does nobody any good. I know from personal experience (not as serious) that this is very difficult but that hard road might be worth the struggle for all concerned.

 

 

No-one has the right to make that judgement other than Denise Fergus herself. As I've already said, I cannot even start to imagine what she has gone through over all these years, but I know, hand on heart, that I, personally would NEVER forgive anyone who harmed either of my children, let alone murder them. And yes, I would probably want to hunt them down and subject them to the same kind of ordeal they had inflicted on my child - rightly or wrongly, I think that would be the very primitive, but natural response of any parent. Of course, that would be vengeance, rather than justice, but it's still an understandable response.

[shaun.lawson]

It's an impossible thing to ask, but my own experience of bitterness, hatred and self-hatred suggests that everybody concerned would be better off if Diane Fergus made some effort to forgive the murderers. It would be better for her, of course, to not spend her life angry and bitter and that feeling does nobody any good. I know from personal experience (not as serious) that this is very difficult but that hard road might be worth the struggle for all concerned.

 

Perhaps - but everyone grieves and copes in their own way. I couldn't begin to put myself in her shoes, and it's for her to decide how to handle it; not anyone else to suggest she should be behaving differently, IMO.

[Acey]

 

I'd need to watch last week's Question Time again, but what i remember is Will Self really nailing this argument. Worth a watch.

 

This, Boris?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfpAstLR-Q

[blondejamtart]

One of the most heinous crimes of our age? Absolutely. But a crime committed by two ten year old children. There's a reason why children are granted certain rights in law that grown ups are not.

 

Indeed, and I've sat through enough criminal cases over the years to understand that more than many on here. However, there are always exceptions to any rule - and I think this case is one of them.

[Gorgiewave]

No-one has the right to make that judgement other than Denise Fergus herself. As I've already said, I cannot even start to imagine what she has gone through over all these years, but I know, hand on heart, that I, personally would NEVER forgive anyone who harmed either of my children, let alone murder them. And yes, I would probably want to hunt them down and subject them to the same kind of ordeal they had inflicted on my child - rightly or wrongly, I think that would be the very primitive, but natural response of any parent. Of course, that would be vengeance, rather than justice, but it's still an understandable response.

It's not a question of rights. It's the fact that forgiveness is foten "a gift one gives oneself".

 

And yes, Denise Fergus, not Diane Fergus.

[Boris]

This, Boris?

 

 

That's some of it. His response to the hysterical drivellings of Carol Vorderman was class too.

 

Will Self is "The Man"

[shaun.lawson]

This, Boris?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWfpAstLR-Q

 

My personal view is that he's right. I think that dismissing two children as 'evil' and beyond hope is to rather conveniently disassociate ourselves from even attempting to understand how it could've happened; what these two kids' backgrounds were; why, indeed, no adult came to James' aid as he was being led away.

 

When reducing their sentences back down to eight years, the European Court found that Thompson and Venables' trial was horrendously flawed, and something akin to two bewildered children caught in the middle of a baying mob. Michael Howard's subsequent attempts to play politics didn't exactly cover him in glory either.

[Jamboy81]

Theres a couple of names of Facebook but nothing serious and no photos. But i'm sure quite a few people in his prison will have recognised him by now. Wont be long until some photos are flying about. Then his new name won't be worth a sook!

 

 

[blondejamtart]

It's not a question of rights. It's the fact that forgiveness is foten "a gift one gives oneself".

 

And yes, Denise Fergus, not Diane Fergus.

 

 

Yes, I can see where you're coming from, but if you could forgive someone who had done that to your child, then you're a better person than I could ever be.

[Meadows]

I was told yesterday that this guy was outed by colleagues working in a west lothian warehouse. Have not got a clue about the validity or when this was however but interesting to think he may be closer to home than we all think.

 

The same stories went around about Maxine Carr...meant to be working for sainbury's in east kilbride, FWIW..i dont care if venebales is outed as long as he goes to jail for a very long time.

[Tazio]

Exactly. It's easy for us to sit here and say it's none of her business but we can't even begin to understand what she's feeling.

 

The rumours are he's a nonce and has been caught with child porn. I really hope his identity is leaked and he gets done in. A lost cause.

 

And that sums up why the authorities must sit on the details of this.

 

Someone deserves to get "done in" because of a rumour. And of course in tabloid Britain if you want a guaranteed result chuck in the words "child porn".

 

It will be a lovely place we live in if rumours are enough to justify people acting.

 

And I notice further up the thread we have the first rumour that he was living close to Edinburgh, I can almost gurantee that every city in Britain apart from Liverpool will have someone claiming he was living near there.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

And that sums up why the authorities must sit on the details of this.

 

Someone deserves to get "done in" because of a rumour. And of course in tabloid Britain if you want a guaranteed result chuck in the words "child porn".

 

It will be a lovely place we live in if rumours are enough to justify people acting.

 

And I notice further up the thread we have the first rumour that he was living close to Edinburgh, I can almost gurantee that every city in Britain apart from Liverpool will have someone claiming he was living near there.

 

Yes I know what you're saying but they actually claimed it during a report on the news on ITV earlier so they must be pretty sure of it.

 

He deserves to get done in even if all he is guilty of is helping old ladies with their shopping and rescuing cats from trees, imo.

[Tazio]

; why, indeed, no adult came to James' aid as he was being led away.

 

That's a fairly easy one to answer. Adults are worried about approaching children in case the get accused of being "paedos" by passers by. The great irony that the red tops who claim to be leading a crusade against "paedos, nonces and child porn" have probably made it harder for a member of the public to act if they see anything suspicious.

[Boris]

Yes I know what you're saying but they actually claimed it during a report on the news on ITV earlier so they must be pretty sure of it.

 

He deserves to get done in even if all he is guilty of is helping old ladies with their shopping and rescuing cats from trees, imo.

 

There's your get out clause.

[Victorian]

straw has just got the mother's name wrong in his statement.

[I P Knightley]

Why? Not being arsey, I just don't know what that information is going to do for her.

 

I'd need to watch last week's Question Time again, but what i remember is Will Self really nailing this argument. Worth a watch.

 

 

We can only guess but I imagine, if I were in her shoes, that I would be extremely distrustful of a justice system that let my boy's killer out after 8 years inside. I imagine that, without any confirmation, her mind is in overtime wondering just how this killer was behaving - imagining the worst.

 

Imagining myself to be a bereaved parent, I would certainly want to ensure that justice was served and would have sought assurances that the killers being released on licence would not allow them to commit offences or be a threat to others. I suppose, in short, that I'm a sceptical bugger and would want this information to confirm or deny my suspicions that the system is not working to deliver justice for my lost son.

 

I can see why you're asking the question (& Acey, too) but I can also see a way in which her requests might be valid. She's been put through a horrible lot and those with the power to do so, should be bending over to make this as painless for her as possible.