Jon Venables identity revealed? (merged threads)

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

I would suspect that the persons anticipating a lynch mob justice should remember the classic public attitude. You know the usual, " somebody should do something about this" and nobody does. I am not at all advocating lynch justice, I am just pointing out how these dire threats are seldom carried out.

 

You know like the if I ever meet Judas Phressley i'll do him, or whoever the Judas of the month is, yet for some reason none of these hard men ever meet the Judas of the month, strange because these Judas characters are not in hiding and shouldn't be hard to find. Like the man says talks cheap.

 

You're right Bob, many people have the attitude that "something should be done (just not by me)"

 

What does worry me about this particular case is that if something was done - i.e. some psuedo hardman/woman dishing out their version of justice - the tabloid press would do there best to make a "hero" out of them, or th very least they would be 'campaigning' for a lenient sentence etc.

[2NaFish]

I would suspect that the persons anticipating a lynch mob justice should remember the classic public attitude. You know the usual, " somebody should do something about this" and nobody does. I am not at all advocating lynch justice, I am just pointing out how these dire threats are seldom carried out.

 

You know like the if I ever meet Judas Phressley i'll do him, or whoever the Judas of the month is, yet for some reason none of these hard men ever meet the Judas of the month, strange because these Judas characters are not in hiding and shouldn't be hard to find. Like the man says talks cheap.

 

unless you can guarantee it will never happen - and given peadiatricians have been attacked - thens yours is a moot, if reasonably made, point.

[blairdin]

Like many, I've had the text, a number of mates have had the text, it's spreading like wildfire and I find it utterly terrifying.

 

Venables and Thompson were tried and convicted of a horrendous. Kids or not, IMHO the sentence was wholly inadequate for the crime they committed. Saying that, they served the sentence handed down for the crime and the probation service deemed them rehabilitated and fit for release. Any blame for the current mess needs to be directed in their direction.

 

They should never have been released with new identities. Murderers are relaed from prison all the time without a new identity, they shouldn't have been any different. Public opinion should have been guaged after explaining these kids (as they were) had been rehabilitated inside and were ready for some kind of release on licence as adults (as they are now). If after that the UK public wasn't ready for Venables and Thompson, then Venables and Thompson weren't ready for realease or parole. Simples.

 

However, what's done is done. Having gone down this route Venables new identity has to be preserved. Innocent until proven guilty, that's how law in this country works. Irrespective of his previous, he is perfectly entitled to a fair trial for whatever allegations have been made recently. The UK justice system that deemed him suitable for release owes him a fair trial. If his identity is revealed, he won't get one.

 

IMHO it was that the pressure of trying to conceal his past that drove Venables off the rails (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/07/jon-venables-confessed-identity). It seems the most likely explanation. Our flawed justice system did that.

 

This puts Ralph and Denise Bulger in a horrible situation - they have my sympathy. The mock outrage from the tabloids fuelling the current hysteria and witch-hunt is an absolute disgrace.

[scottish_chicP]

I really think they should tell us who he is now. Someone on my facebook (obviously someone thick as sh*t) has posted a name and where he lives. If its not him these morons have just completely ruined someone's life. I really wish people would think before they do stuff so utterly ridiculous.

[Gorgiewave]

REMINDER

 

There is a ban on publishing any information that might lead to the identification of a JKB mod. Please DO NOT post anything of this nature regardless of whether or not you believe it to be authentic.

[gorgiegirl]

I'd reckon it'll be true. I got the baby P murderers names well before they were released to the media and they were correct. Don't know if the address' were correct but if the names are right then I'd reckon the address' are too.

 

And how many texts did you get about Ruud? Not having a dig at you, just highlighting the amount of untruths we are all sent on a daily basis. I personally received 20 plus about McGregor getting arrested the next day, yet to happen. I sincerely hope that innocent people are not villified due to this.

[jambopompey]

Like many, I've had the text, a number of mates have had the text, it's spreading like wildfire and I find it utterly terrifying.

 

Venables and Thompson were tried and convicted of a horrendous. Kids or not, IMHO the sentence was wholly inadequate for the crime they committed. Saying that, they served the sentence handed down for the crime and the probation service deemed them rehabilitated and fit for release. Any blame for the current mess needs to be directed in their direction.

 

They should never have been released with new identities. Murderers are relaed from prison all the time without a new identity, they shouldn't have been any different. Public opinion should have been guaged after explaining these kids (as they were) had been rehabilitated inside and were ready for some kind of release on licence as adults (as they are now). If after that the UK public wasn't ready for Venables and Thompson, then Venables and Thompson weren't ready for realease or parole. Simples.

 

However, what's done is done. Having gone down this route Venables new identity has to be preserved. Innocent until proven guilty, that's how law in this country works. Irrespective of his previous, he is perfectly entitled to a fair trial for whatever allegations have been made recently. The UK justice system that deemed him suitable for release owes him a fair trial. If his identity is revealed, he won't get one.

 

IMHO it was that the pressure of trying to conceal his past that drove Venables off the rails (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/07/jon-venables-confessed-identity). It seems the most likely explanation. Our flawed justice system did that.

 

This puts Ralph and Denise Bulger in a horrible situation - they have my sympathy. The mock outrage from the tabloids fuelling the current hysteria and witch-hunt is an absolute disgrace.

 

very close to my thoughts on it, the only thing that is getting me is his mums reaction of wanting to know what charges has been brought again'st him this time, this would open a lot of cans of worms as it would set a precident for any future case for anyone (not venables), it could be argued that someone who robs my house i must know about their future crimes as i was a subject of a previous.

we pride ourselves in this country of being a fair country in terms of our laws, but when such things happen the tabloids always have a field day in selling more papers and feed the mod mentality of our nature.

say one person who the texts/facebook campaigns are totally innocent and are killed, who will be blamed, and no doubt which tabloids will condemn those who carry them out

[Boris]

Why are people so obsessed with knowing Venables' alias? Why? What possible purpose will it serve?

 

A nation of bloody curtain twitchers.

[gorgiegirl]

Why are people so obsessed with knowing Venables' alias? Why? What possible purpose will it serve?

 

A nation of bloody curtain twitchers.

 

What gets me is the fact that he is inside, therefore, any vigilantes will be unable to exact revenge, thus rendering the information useless

[Chris Benoit]

very close to my thoughts on it, the only thing that is getting me is his mums reaction of wanting to know what charges has been brought again'st him this time, this would open a lot of cans of worms as it would set a precident for any future case for anyone (not venables), it could be argued that someone who robs my house i must know about their future crimes as i was a subject of a previous.

we pride ourselves in this country of being a fair country in terms of our laws, but when such things happen the tabloids always have a field day in selling more papers and feed the mod mentality of our nature.

say one person who the texts/facebook campaigns are totally innocent and are killed, who will be blamed, and no doubt which tabloids will condemn those who carry them out

 

 

this is my concern about it all, some poor guy's gonna get seriously hurt or killed because some people are too stupid to form their own opinion and instead take theirs from the lowest of the gutter press. waste 20p tomorrow and buy the Daily Star and read the 'TEXT MANIACS' section, any right minded person who sees it would hve their head in their hands

[Boris]

What gets me is the fact that he is inside, therefore, any vigilantes will be unable to exact revenge, thus rendering the information useless

 

Hahaha! Good point!

 

I'll change "nation of curtain twitchers" to "nation of half wits".

[Tazio]

The vigilante thing is getting hysterical, and not in the funny sense of the word.

 

So someone gets to him and "does him" it means that we have lost a murderer from society and gained another one.

 

 

And at least one family had to flee the area near the original case before Thomson and Venables were originally arrested as vigilante mobs decided that their children were guilty of the crime. And of course they weren't.

[redm]

The vigilante thing is getting hysterical, and not in the funny sense of the word.

 

So someone gets to him and "does him" it means that we have lost a murderer from society and gained another one.

 

 

And at least one family had to flee the area near the original case before Thomson and Venables were originally arrested as vigilante mobs decided that their children were guilty of the crime. And of course they weren't.

 

Yeah, apparently lynch mobs gathered in the street where the family lived and clambered up trees while screaming 'Hang him now'. The him in question was a 12 year old boy. A completely innocent 12 year old boy at that.

[shaun.lawson]

As you are well aware, any case should be judged on it's merits. If we were to hear about a child dying at the hands of another child, the sort of thing I would think of would be they were mucking about and one fell and hurt his head. Or one got a little exuberant in the heat of the moment and went too far with something like a push. When someone abducts a youngster, telling passers by that he is their brother, leads them away to a quiet secluded part where the proceed to murder him slowly shows they actually thought about their crime and it was far from a heat of the moment. The "we were just mucking about" excuse is gone at that stage.

 

The two protagonists were old enough to conceive of the plan and old enough to carry it out. They should be old enough to serve the time for said crime.

 

Their bewilderment and confusion in court says that actually, this wasn't an adult crime at all. You've assumed in the above that they planned the whole thing: I'm not at all convinced they did, or necessarily intended to kill James Bulger when they led him away. I also can't recall the last murder case publicised in the press in which someone in this country, and not to do with a so-called honour killing, had been stoned to death: meaning it seems adult criminals shy away from this so-called 'adult murder' too.

 

Someone wrote on here the other day about having been part of a group which, when he was 14, taped a mate of theirs to a lamp post, poured petrol around his feet and stuck a lit cigarette in his mouth. If, God forbid, the worst had happened, would that have been an adult crime - or just teenagers behaving appallingly and not thinking about what they were doing, with tragic consequences?

 

My brother bullied my sister throughout their childhoods: some of his behaviour suggesting something pre-planned (such as taking packs of chocolate bars from downstairs, eating them, then putting the wrappers in her bedroom drawer, so she'd get in trouble when they were discovered); most of his behaviour being rather more, um, spontaneous (such as throwing her against a wall, or, to my horror when I found out, standing on her neck). My brother also poured scalding water straight out of a kettle and on to my youngest sister when she was two. It wasn't clear whether if it was an accident or not: his lack of remorse afterwards was weird. So was he evil? Or a messed up kid with an awful background who just reacted to it differently to the rest of us?

 

In Lord of the Flies, Simon's death appeared pre-meditated; Piggy's less so. Were either of these adult murders, or again, children running amok with no adults to guide them, taking things to their own logical, if grotesque conclusions? As Gorgiewave commented, children can be astonishingly cruel, and frequently hunt in packs: yet that doesn't make their behaviour 'adult', however much it might shock us. My own view remains that it was entirely wrong to try Venables and Thompson in an adult court, using adult methods, when they weren't adults in any shape or form.

[jamboron]

I got a name and a town 5 minutes ago, but whether or not it is him is speculation at this point. I would wait until the tabloids have there day and wont be passing it on.

 

I got a name & town at 19:40 last night, but like yourself I have my doubts about the reality of it.

[jamboron]

I refer to you my earlier point, he wasn't treated as a 10 year old when he was one, so apparently rules aren't rules....

 

I'm not trying to defend him, if he can't rehabilitate then off back to jail he goes, oh wait, that's what has happened. I just don't see how anyone gains anything (other than the press) from naming and shaming him, in fact it's far more likely to cause even more trouble and potentially with someone else ending up committing a criminal act.

 

Well he bloody well does, he costs the tax payers a fortune to pay for his upkeep in jail,whilst single parent families & OAP`s struggle to make ends meet in this day and age.

[shaun.lawson]

 

 

They should never have been released with new identities. Murderers are relaed from prison all the time without a new identity, they shouldn't have been any different. Public opinion should have been guaged after explaining these kids (as they were) had been rehabilitated inside and were ready for some kind of release on licence as adults (as they are now). If after that the UK public wasn't ready for Venables and Thompson, then Venables and Thompson weren't ready for realease or parole. Simples.

 

 

 

Sorry. Not 'simples' at all. I agreed completely with the rest of your post - but it's a racing certainty that had your solution been adopted, they'd never have been released at any point in their lives. The notoriety of the crime would've seen to that. You yourself have described the witch hunt currently going on as "terrifying": releasing them without changing their identities would've meant that witch hunt would've occurred immediately.

 

There's also the European Court to consider, which reduced the sentences from fifteen years back down to eight years in the first place. I think that Court was right to point out the deep, serious flaws with the trial; wrong, given the circumstances, to enforce reduced sentences. But in any case: it doesn't appear that the solution implemented even did Jon Venables any favours; let alone James Bulger's family.

[jambojackbilly]

Sorry. Not 'simples' at all. I agreed completely with the rest of your post - but it's a racing certainty that had your solution been adopted, they'd never have been released at any point in their lives. The notoriety of the crime would've seen to that. You yourself have described the witch hunt currently going on as "terrifying": releasing them without changing their identities would've meant that witch hunt would've occurred immediately.

 

There's also the European Court to consider, which reduced the sentences from fifteen years back down to eight years in the first place. I think that Court was right to point out the deep, serious flaws with the trial; wrong, given the circumstances, to enforce reduced sentences. But in any case: it doesn't appear that the solution implemented even did Jon Venables any favours; let alone James Bulger's family.

 

 

JV is now 27 and as an adult responsible for any crimes he's convicted of

 

What has he done to merit anonymity and if allowed where do we draw the line

 

 

Life can be unfair at times maybe he's about to learn how much, hope so, had his chance after killing

[shaun.lawson]

JV is now 27 and as an adult responsible for any crimes he's convicted of

 

What has he done to merit anonymity and if allowed where do we draw the line

 

 

Life can be unfair at times maybe he's about to learn how much, hope so, had his chance after killing

 

Perhaps it's not a question of what he's done to merit anonymity - but rather, that the way the press and public behave makes it necessary.

[jambojackbilly]

Perhaps it's not a question of what he's done to merit anonymity - but rather, that the way the press and public behave makes it necessary.

 

 

I accept what you say Shuan and agree as it goes but IMO if JV is charged/convicted he should be as who he now is now as he was when found guilty of murder.

 

Or are we going to protect criminals Re of crime because the press like a witch hunt when it suits them

[Sterling Archer]

I accept what you say Shuan and agree as it goes but IMO if JV is charged/convicted he should be as who he now is now as he was when found guilty of murder.

 

Or are we going to protect criminals Re of crime because the press like a witch hunt when it suits them

 

I got a text last night with a name and location of an innocent man. I obviously didn't forward it for that reason but now I'm in two minds about what they should do.

 

I don't think that JV's identity should be revealed for the reasons I've stated before in this thread however, if innocent people start getting assaulted because the wrong names are being banded about then it makes me wonder if there could be something gained from announcing who he is and stopping innocent people from being at risk.

 

It's a really tough one and a bit of a no win situation.

[shaun.lawson]

I accept what you say Shuan and agree as it goes but IMO if JV is charged/convicted he should be as who he now is now as he was when found guilty of murder.

 

Or are we going to protect criminals Re of crime because the press like a witch hunt when it suits them

 

Hang on JJB - think about this for a moment. For starters, Jon Venables is currently in custody. If he's charged and convicted, he'll remain in custody, more than likely for a very long time.

 

So what's the big deal here? That's one of the many things which makes these apparent mass text messages and comments on Facebook so utterly absurd. Of course, it'll get rather more complicated if he's not charged, or if he's acquitted - but for now, if people are so completely thick that they haven't grasped Venables is already under lock and key, the authorities should hardly have to cater for them.

[Jamboy81]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2886194/Dads-agony-at-being-mistaken-for-Jon-Venables.html

 

He looks **** all like Jon Venables!

[shaun.lawson]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2886194/Dads-agony-at-being-mistaken-for-Jon-Venables.html

 

He looks **** all like Jon Venables!

 

But too many people are complete morons. I wonder if it's possible to prosecute those responsible for the Facebook page? If it is, I hope they are.

[missed98]

Well he bloody well does, he costs the tax payers a fortune to pay for his upkeep in jail,whilst single parent families & OAP`s struggle to make ends meet in this day and age.

 

 

That's a completely pointless argument and could be aimed at anyone at the pleasure of her majesty.

 

I still don't see how HE benefits. If you mean he's protected from a lynch mob, that's not a benefit, it's a human right. you might not like the idea of human rights for murderers, rapists etc.. but as so many on here have said, that's a very slippery slope as we've seen recently in America.

[Jamboy81]

But too many people are complete morons. I wonder if it's possible to prosecute those responsible for the Facebook page? If it is, I hope they are.

 

Its the folk who turned up at his door and who actually seen him. He's got ginger hair ffs!!

[Buffalo Bill]

Two horrible little sh*ts skive school, steal and then plot the abduction, torture, sexual assualt, mutilation and murderer two year old boy.

 

 

Now I know they came from a crappy background but can Will Self really justify that they didn't know what they were doing? Was that his point or did I pick that up wrong?

 

 

I don't believe in mob rule. Venables' sorry everyday existence is his punishment, if you know what I mean.

[shaun.lawson]

Two horrible little sh*ts skive school, steal and then plot the abduction, torture, sexual assualt, mutilation and murderer two year old boy.

 

 

Now I know they came from a crappy background but can Will Self really justify that they didn't know what they were doing? Was that his point or did I pick that up wrong?

 

 

I don't believe in mob rule. Venables' sorry everyday existence is his punishment, if you know what I mean.

 

He didn't justify that argument; he merely suggested it as a possibility. The transcripts from the trial actually validate that possibility. He also fitted it in to a wider point about how we're so quick to call those involved "evil", without really thinking about it.

[redm]

Two horrible little sh*ts skive school, steal and then plot the abduction, torture, sexual assualt, mutilation and murderer two year old boy.

 

 

Now I know they came from a crappy background but can Will Self really justify that they didn't know what they were doing? Was that his point or did I pick that up wrong?

 

 

I don't believe in mob rule. Venables' sorry everyday existence is his punishment, if you know what I mean.

 

 

Exactly. All this talk of what he gets out of it seems more than a bit daft to me. What exactly does he have? He has never and will never lead anything even close to a normal life. I'm not suggesting that anyone should necessarily feel sorry for him because of this, but it's a fact and it's something that will weigh him down all day, every day until he dies. It's a life sentence in more ways than one.

 

I saw a film a while ago called 'Boy A' - I don't know much about the background other than that it was loosely based on the Bulger case/Venables & Thompson and was an adaption of some novel that had been written but it was interesting to see something that focused more on the outcome of imprisoning a child criminal than it did on the impact on victims. Good film actually. Peter Mullen is in it doing his gruff Glaswegian social worker thing.

[blairdin]

Sorry. Not 'simples' at all. I agreed completely with the rest of your post - but it's a racing certainty that had your solution been adopted, they'd never have been released at any point in their lives. The notoriety of the crime would've seen to that. You yourself have described the witch hunt currently going on as "terrifying": releasing them without changing their identities would've meant that witch hunt would've occurred immediately.

 

There's also the European Court to consider, which reduced the sentences from fifteen years back down to eight years in the first place. I think that Court was right to point out the deep, serious flaws with the trial; wrong, given the circumstances, to enforce reduced sentences. But in any case: it doesn't appear that the solution implemented even did Jon Venables any favours; let alone James Bulger's family.

 

 

I see what you're saying Shaun, the European Court ruling did back us into a corner regarding their sentence. However, these kids who had grown into men inside should have been treated like any other murderers being released from prison. How many convicted murderers are released every year? How many of them are relased with a new identity? I'd wager a bet of hardy any, if any at all. So regardless of notoriety they shouldn't have been offered a new identity. The witch hunt is ongoing because to the vast majority, myself included, the punishment didn't fit the crime. The court's are answerable to that and would have been answerable to any bother either of the convicted boys found on their release.

 

Given the notoriety, Venables and Thompson should have been released with police protection and possibly a new start in another country. The Court should have declared in public at the time why they were suitable for release and been able to win over public opinion if they were so sure they were right. Press gagging orders don't exist for arseholes like John Terry or another celebrity with a skeleton in a closet, they exist for cases like this. If Venables and Thompson had been released under their own identities in 2001 with a press gag on ever reporting their whereabouts we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now, with accusing glances at and rumours about completey different and innocent men.

 

Once this whole sorry mess is sorted out, it once again shows up the British justice system, the European Court and/or Human Rights law for what they are - an absolute complete and utter shambles.

[shaun.lawson]

I see what you're saying Shaun, the European Court ruling did back us into a corner regarding their sentence. However, these kids who had grown into men inside should have been treated like any other murderers being released from prison. How many convicted murderers are released every year? How many of them are relased with a new identity? I'd wager a bet of hardy any, if any at all. So regardless of notoriety they shouldn't have been offered a new identity. The witch hunt is ongoing because to the vast majority, myself included, the punishment didn't fit the crime. The court's are answerable to that and would have been answerable to any bother either of the convicted boys found on their release.

 

Given the notoriety, Venables and Thompson should have been released with police protection and possibly a new start in another country. The Court should have declared in public at the time why they were suitable for release and been able to win over public opinion if they were so sure they were right. Press gagging orders don't exist for arseholes like John Terry or another celebrity with a skeleton in a closet, they exist for cases like this. If Venables and Thompson had been relased under their own identities in 2001 with a press gag on ever reporting there whereabouts we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now, with accusing glances at and rumours about completey different and innocent men.

 

Once this whole sorry mess is sorted out, it once again shows up the British justice system, the European Court and/or Human Rights law for what they are - an absolute complete and utter shambles.

 

Completely disagree. Changes of identity have only occurred in the cases of Venables and Thompson, Maxine Carr and Mary Bell. I can't see what other option the authorities had, in all cases; and in the cases of three of them, we're talking about child murderers. For whatever reason, the legal system seems to have concluded that child murderers deserve a second chance; the problem is, much of the public doesn't agree. Hence the dangers of them being tracked down if they retained their original identities - but changing it has been fraught for them as well, and must be utterly weird to live through.

 

Incidentally - there's no chance of a liberal judiciary ever winning over public opinion. A substantial majority in this country are in favour of the death penalty; and personally, I'm grateful to the European Court for ensuring it can never be brought back.

[blairdin]

Completely disagree. Changes of identity have only occurred in the cases of Venables and Thompson, Maxine Carr and Mary Bell. I can't see what other option the authorities had, in all cases; and in the cases of three of them, we're talking about child murderers. For whatever reason, the legal system seems to have concluded that child murderers deserve a second chance; the problem is, much of the public doesn't agree. Hence the dangers of them being tracked down if they retained their original identities - but changing it has been fraught for them as well, and must be utterly weird to live through.

 

Incidentally - there's no chance of a liberal judiciary ever winning over public opinion. A substantial majority in this country are in favour of the death penalty; and personally, I'm grateful to the European Court for ensuring it can never be brought back.

 

The fact remains that more damage has been done now as a direct result of Venabls being granted a new identity - the names, addressed and pictures of completely innocent people are being passed on as being Venables. That can't be allowed to happen again.

 

No other criminal is offered the chance to change their past, the afforementioned should have been no different. The way everything is unravelling now shows the dangers, completely innocent people are being implicated.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

As a side, I am in favour of the death penalty but absolutely categorically not for Venables and Thomson. I also in favour of tougher sentences in general. A life sentence isn't 10 to 15 years. But this is a whole seperate debate.

[Boris]

The fact remains that more damage has been done now as a direct result of Venabls being granted a new identity - the names, addressed and pictures of completely innocent people are being passed on as being Venables. That can't be allowed to happen again.

 

No other criminal is offered the chance to change their past, the afforementioned should have been no different. The way everything is unravelling now shows the dangers, completely innocent people are being implicated.

 

 

 

Surely all the furore is being caused by stupid people and the press, rather than the two killers?

 

If people actually stopped and thought about it, as has been mentioned before, Venables is BACK IN PRISON. Therefore even if any of the photos or names or addresses were correct, Venables would not be there.

 

Ergo, if someone sees the person in the photograph at the address mentioned it CANNOT be Venables as HE IS BACK IN PRISON!!!!

 

You want the death penalty? I'd advocate it for the crime of being a brain dead knuckle dragging lynch mob baiting idiot!

 

BTW, that description wasn't aimed at you Blairdin - just in case you read it like that!

[blairdin]

Surely all the furore is being caused by stupid people and the press, rather than the two killers?

 

If people actually stopped and thought about it, as has been mentioned before, Venables is BACK IN PRISON. Therefore even if any of the photos or names or addresses were correct, Venables would not be there.

 

Ergo, if someone sees the person in the photograph at the address mentioned it CANNOT be Venables as HE IS BACK IN PRISON!!!!

 

You want the death penalty? I'd advocate it for the crime of being a brain dead knuckle dragging lynch mob baiting idiot!

 

BTW, that description wasn't aimed at you Blairdin - just in case you read it like that!

 

Fair play Boris - agree entirely.

 

People who might normally stop and think are too busy being led by our tabloid media and, in your words, brain dead knuckle dragging lynch mob baiting idiots. That's what I find scary.

[felix]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2886194/Dads-agony-at-being-mistaken-for-Jon-Venables.html

 

He looks **** all like Jon Venables!

How do you know what Jon Venables looks like ?

You realise that Venables will have grown a bit, since that shot was taken

[redm]

Fair play Boris - agree entirely.

 

People who might normally stop and think are too busy being led by our tabloid media and, in your words, brain dead knuckle dragging lynch mob baiting idiots. That's what I find scary.

 

 

...who, in turn, raise other brain dead knuckle dragging lynch mobbing idiot children. Violence breeds violence. There's a pattern.

 

Wonder what their kids will be getting up to while they're off out breaking the windows and screaming for the lynching of some poor bloke who just so happens to have been named on facebook or in some trashrag tabloid?

[Jamboy81]

How do you know what Jon Venables looks like ?

You realise that Venables will have grown a bit, since that shot was taken

 

Its really not that hard mate. I reckon I could pick him out if someone showed me a bunch of photos and one of them was him. Remember unless he has had significant cosmetic surgery, his distinguishing features will still be there. The other prisoners have already worked out who he is!

 

His eye colour, skin tone and hair colour will probably be the same (noticed this immediately when I looked at the photo of Clavert).

 

His ears, nose and chin will probably be the same shape but will have grown with his body. His eyebrows will be the same shape but may be fuller hair.

 

Possible variations: His weight. His head and facial hair. Apart from that, i think most people would spot the resemblances quite easily...

[Tazio]

I'd recognise him anywhere, he's got cold dark evil eyes. He just looks like pure evil.

 

Apparently.

[Boris]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...on_Time_London/

 

From 28 mins for the Venables stuff.

 

Just watched it for the first time - didn't realise Will Self was going to be on otherwise I would've made a point of catching it.

 

 

Good man Borthers. I thought Self was brilliant.

 

Belated birthday wishes to you too.

[Primavera]

While I can understand the argument that they need protecting from the mob, have any of you got a daughter in her mid twenties who might find herself unknowingly dating or marrying one of these guys? Does your support for their protection go that far?

 

I have no idea how the parole service works and it may well be that they would force disclosure if either of them gets into a serious relationship, then again, they might not.

[Jamboy81]

 

 

I have no idea how the parole service works and it may well be that they would force disclosure if either of them gets into a serious relationship, then again, they might not.

 

Not. Under no circumstances can they reveal his real name to anyone. If he ever got married his wife would never know who he was, unless she worked it out herself he told her (risky).

[shaun.lawson]

While I can understand the argument that they need protecting from the mob, have any of you got a daughter in her mid twenties who might find herself unknowingly dating or marrying one of these guys? Does your support for their protection go that far?

 

I have no idea how the parole service works and it may well be that they would force disclosure if either of them gets into a serious relationship, then again, they might not.

 

It's a fair point. But we can't spend our lives living in fear. Almost every action we take has an element of risk, and all we can do is hope our loved ones or ourselves don't end up dating a dangerous criminal. It's all part of living in a free society I'm afraid.

[Jamboy81]

I was quite surprised to see in the paper this morning Venables (the real one) had a Facebook page. The mirror published some details but not his pseudo name. The account has now been removed. Wonder if his pals are wondering where he's gone!

[shaun.lawson]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/nov/05/bulger.guardianletters

 

A Bulger juror's verdict

 

The Guardian, Friday 5 November 1999

 

I was a juror at the Bulger trial and it is with dismay that I see in the press continuing demands for retribution, for vengeance of the most primitive kind (Prisons chief apologises for calling for the release of Bulger's killers, November 3). The defendants were children - young, ill-educated, of a social background which, I suspect, had included little direction or support; caught up in circumstances which they only partly comprehended and within which they made appalling choices.

 

The trial was about retribution. They were denied psychiatric help until after the ending of the trial (and when the psychiatrist who gave evidence told the judge that this needless, court-imposed, delay in helping them was damaging to their chances of coping with their trauma and eventual hope for reformation, she was sharply put down and told that it was none of her or the court's concern).

 

That this dreadful killing had taken place was hardly disputed but what should have been of central concern - the defendants' understanding of what they had done, their moral awareness - were given only the most cursory examination.

 

The jury heard from their teacher that he included moral dimensions in his lessons - but not that they were persistent truants. Nor was he questioned about their ability to profit from those few lessons they attended. The psychiatrist was relentlessly bullied to give a yes/no answer to a question ("Were they morally aware of the nature of what was done?") which demanded a more complex and, perhaps, equivocal answer. Her final, and reluctant, "on balance, yes" was taken as definite proof of the defendant's adult moral sense.

 

It was apparent that in the dock were two children; almost entirely uncomprehending of most of the proceedings; distressed by those parts they did understand (as, for example, the replaying of tapes of the police interviews when they cried and cried and called for their mothers); subject to trial as if they were aware adults; unaccountably branded as "evil" by the judge.

 

I have no doubt that they did commit a dreadful act and I have the most profound sympathy for the parents of James Bulger. But was justice really served? I felt that we, the jury, were forced into a verdict of "guilty of murder". A more appropriate verdict would have been "guilty as frightened and largely unaware children who made a terrible mistake and who are now in urgent need of psychiatric and social help".

 

Can any of us say that at the age of nine we did not do things which were incomprehensively stupid and unaware? Is retribution against children really what we should wish for? May there not be circumstances where perpetrators of crimes should be offered help rather than vilification?

 

The press should help the public to understand ethical complexities rather than promoting simple-minded vengeance.

[Miller Jambo 60]

Their bewilderment and confusion in court says that actually, this wasn't an adult crime at all. You've assumed in the above that they planned the whole thing: I'm not at all convinced they did, or necessarily intended to kill James Bulger when they led him away. I also can't recall the last murder case publicised in the press in which someone in this country, and not to do with a so-called honour killing, had been stoned to death: meaning it seems adult criminals shy away from this so-called 'adult murder' too.

 

Someone wrote on here the other day about having been part of a group which, when he was 14, taped a mate of theirs to a lamp post, poured petrol around his feet and stuck a lit cigarette in his mouth. If, God forbid, the worst had happened, would that have been an adult crime - or just teenagers behaving appallingly and not thinking about what they were doing, with tragic consequences?

 

My brother bullied my sister throughout their childhoods: some of his behaviour suggesting something pre-planned (such as taking packs of chocolate bars from downstairs, eating them, then putting the wrappers in her bedroom drawer, so she'd get in trouble when they were discovered); most of his behaviour being rather more, um, spontaneous (such as throwing her against a wall, or, to my horror when I found out, standing on her neck). My brother also poured scalding water straight out of a kettle and on to my youngest sister when she was two. It wasn't clear whether if it was an accident or not: his lack of remorse afterwards was weird. So was he evil? Or a messed up kid with an awful background who just reacted to it differently to the rest of us?

 

In Lord of the Flies, Simon's death appeared pre-meditated; Piggy's less so. Were either of these adult murders, or again, children running amok with no adults to guide them, taking things to their own logical, if grotesque conclusions? As Gorgiewave commented, children can be astonishingly cruel, and frequently hunt in packs: yet that doesn't make their behaviour 'adult', however much it might shock us. My own view remains that it was entirely wrong to try Venables and Thompson in an adult court, using adult methods, when they weren't adults in any shape or form.

 

Aye i used to scare my big brother by putting a hairbrush in his bed.

They were evil little deranged nutcases Shaun and nothing said will change my opinion.

[2NaFish]

Aye i used to scare my big brother by putting a hairbrush in his bed.

They were evil little deranged nutcases Shaun and nothing said will change my opinion.

 

Maybe you lead a charmed existence, but i know i was in several circumstances as a child where had the coin landed another way terrible things could've happened. Not that these two should be let off with the motto "boys will be boys" ringing in their ears, but branding a 10yr old evil is ridiculously simplistic.

[1874robbo]

http://www.guardian....guardianletters

 

A Bulger juror's verdict

 

The Guardian, Friday 5 November 1999

 

I was a juror at the Bulger trial and it is with dismay that I see in the press continuing demands for retribution, for vengeance of the most primitive kind (Prisons chief apologises for calling for the release of Bulger's killers, November 3). The defendants were children - young, ill-educated, of a social background which, I suspect, had included little direction or support; caught up in circumstances which they only partly comprehended and within which they made appalling choices.

 

The trial was about retribution. They were denied psychiatric help until after the ending of the trial (and when the psychiatrist who gave evidence told the judge that this needless, court-imposed, delay in helping them was damaging to their chances of coping with their trauma and eventual hope for reformation, she was sharply put down and told that it was none of her or the court's concern).

 

That this dreadful killing had taken place was hardly disputed but what should have been of central concern - the defendants' understanding of what they had done, their moral awareness - were given only the most cursory examination.

 

The jury heard from their teacher that he included moral dimensions in his lessons - but not that they were persistent truants. Nor was he questioned about their ability to profit from those few lessons they attended. The psychiatrist was relentlessly bullied to give a yes/no answer to a question ("Were they morally aware of the nature of what was done?") which demanded a more complex and, perhaps, equivocal answer. Her final, and reluctant, "on balance, yes" was taken as definite proof of the defendant's adult moral sense.

 

It was apparent that in the dock were two children; almost entirely uncomprehending of most of the proceedings; distressed by those parts they did understand (as, for example, the replaying of tapes of the police interviews when they cried and cried and called for their mothers); subject to trial as if they were aware adults; unaccountably branded as "evil" by the judge.

 

I have no doubt that they did commit a dreadful act and I have the most profound sympathy for the parents of James Bulger. But was justice really served? I felt that we, the jury, were forced into a verdict of "guilty of murder". A more appropriate verdict would have been "guilty as frightened and largely unaware children who made a terrible mistake and who are now in urgent need of psychiatric and social help".

 

Can any of us say that at the age of nine we did not do things which were incomprehensively stupid and unaware? Is retribution against children really what we should wish for? May there not be circumstances where perpetrators of crimes should be offered help rather than vilification?

 

The press should help the public to understand ethical complexities rather than promoting simple-minded vengeance.

 

Well that's me convinced then shaun,my heart bleeds for them!!!!!!!

[shaun.lawson]

Well that's me convinced then shaun,my heart bleeds for them!!!!!!!

 

I didn't post that to make anyone's heart bleed for them; my heart doesn't bleed for them in the first place. I posted it to again underline the horrendous problems with the trial - in which the defence, incidentally, didn't even call any witnesses. The whole thing was politically motivated, and not really about justice at all.

[1874robbo]

I didn't post that to make anyone's heart bleed for them; my heart doesn't bleed for them in the first place. I posted it to again underline the horrendous problems with the trial - in which the defence, incidentally, didn't even call any witnesses. The whole thing was politically motivated, and not really about justice at all.

You are right about one thing Shaun,that the trial wasn't about justice.

As imho justice certainly wasn't served on those two pieces of s***!!!!!