One of James Bulgers killers returned to prison

[mike]

Are we sure he isn't a banker, thats about what they are getting for the damage they did

He deffo is !


oh, hang on, you said banker 

[ozviking]

Guys I make no apology in this case to advocate hanging. Maybe as has been suggest wait 16 - 18 years before doing it... that would satisfy me that they'd felt like they paid for the crime too. I'm still shocked by it after all these years.

We can debate Whether you lock them away in darekened 6x4 rooms and feed them bread and water for the rest of their lives, or kill them but either way what has happened now is just plain wrong. They just keep spreading hurt and pain wherever  they go and whatever they do.

From reports I've read:

This animal has a girlfriend who doesn't know who he really is (until now presumably). What about HER mental state right now? How on earth will she sleep at night knowing that this needn't have happened to her but was a state sponsored deception that put her in a potentially dangerous situation . . and her children (if she had any) . . and her family and friends. They're all tortured now because he was allowed out. This just gets worse by the minute.

Like I said, these animals didn't just kill a baby, they're horrifying a whole nation and terrifying individuals on a daily basis. For the rest of their lives.

I wonder how much repentance there is from them?

Certainly there's not a lot of respect for this girl, from him or authorities. They've subjected her to a relationship knowing that if she should ever discover the truth she'd be traumatised.

Hopefully she'll know now and one day soon will make millions selling her story. And hopefully the authorities will spend millions building her a new life.... but would you want to be the boyfreind of the girl who lived with that monster?

He finds himself in a a life built through the kindness of people who want to help him rehabilitate and he repays them falling into drug taking and violence.

He shows scant regard for the restrictions placed upon him by visiting Liverpool, the scene of his evil deeds.

Seems to me that he has thrown everything back into the face of the do-gooders. No surprise for me.

They are worthless pieces of dirt who do not deserve the opportunity to live lives the way they are. It should be stopped.

I've not heard much about the other one... anyone? Maybe he's making a better fist of things. He may not have gone off the rails but if he's discovered the same damage to others will apply.

[PSC]

You do realise that if you are the first to publicise this rumour and this detail then you may be jailed for your actions?

Alternatively, how would you feel if the guy you describe is off sick and is visited by a group of vigilantes?

He said somebody worked in Birchwood since last friday. Lots of people leave jobs and more than likely they do it on a friday. In fact, a young lady left our place last friday for New Zealand, I'm sure thats the rumour eh Cartman?

[Steve]

But what if the guy off sick isn't Venables?
How would his family disprove a false identity if accosted by the public.

[Cartman]

But what if the guy off sick isn't Venables?
How would his family disprove a false identity if accosted by the public.

The 'guy' isn't off sick. He's gone to prison.

[Steve]

The 'guy' isn't off sick. He's gone to prison.

ok so I will assume you are right that someone from there was arrested and sent to prison as you say.
So what makes you so sure that you have correctly revealed his true identity?
Surely not rumour and hearsay bourne out of coincidence?

[Cartman]

Massive rumour round these parts about someone working in Birchwood until last friday. Won't say anymore in case it gets the site in bother.

This was my original post. No mention at all about that I'd correctly revealed anyone's identity. Take note of the first 2 words Steve lad 

[ozviking]

Bulger killer Jon Venables jailed again 'for child porn'

JON Venables, who killed two-year-old British toddler James Bulger in 1993, was reportedly sent back to jail last week on suspected child pornography offences.

British newspaper the Sunday Mirror claimed probation chiefs revoked Venables' parole licence once the allegations were made, but UK cabinet officials refused to reveal the exact reasons.

JON Venables, who killed two-year-old British toddler James Bulger in 1993, was reportedly sent back to jail last week on suspected child pornography offences.

British newspaper the Sunday Mirror claimed probation chiefs revoked Venables' parole licence once the allegations were made, but UK cabinet officials refused to reveal the exact reasons

[Pricey]

This week the tabloids have been obsessing over one of James Bulger's killers, Jon Venables. It appears that The Sun and the Daily Mirror see it as a national service to uncover his new identity - a feat The Sun claimed to have already accomplished yesterday when they ran the story ‘Bulger killer cover blown'. The paper goes so far as to invite readers to call their newsdesk if they know "why venables has returned to jail..."

This is in fact quite the opposite of a national service. A national service would be to try and benefit the country in some way, shape or form; however, finding Jon Venables' new identity does not do this. Who do you think will foot the £100,000 bill when Venables has to have another secret identity created? It won't be The Sun or the Daily Mirror, that's for sure - they'll be long gone and it will be down to the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

According to a YouGov poll for The Sun on Thursday, three out of four people want the reason for Venables' return to be confirmed, even if it puts him at risk. The key to this poll is the word "want". We may want to know all of this information but we certainly don't need to know. It won't help us digest the shocking and harrowing nature of his crime. It's a simple matter of curiosity rather than necessity and the law doesn't work on that basis. Finding Jon Venables' new identity serves nobody's interest but the media itself. Don't be coerced into the witch-hunt.

I agree that there are some questions that we do need answers to, but instead of asking "who is Venables?", we need to ask "is he a threat?" and "what level of police observation is he under when he's not in prison?"

The question of "what did he do to be taken back to prison?" is also a presumptuous one. The press has speculated on the reason in the last few days, but nothing has been confirmed. Venables hasn't necessarily done anything to break his licence - concerns over his mental state would be enough to see him back behind bars.

It is also interesting to see how Venables is constantly labelled as evil because he took a child's life while he himself was still a child. The Sun's legal expert even said Jon Venables' crime "redefined the extremes of evil."

I'm not going to argue whether Venables is an evil person or not - his crime speaks for itself. But as commentator and author Will Self pointed out this week, surely it is more evil for an adult - who fully comprehends the consequences of his or her actions - to take a life than a 10-year-old boy, who can't fully understand what he is doing?

Anthony Marsh was this week charged with killing his 24-year-old partner and their 10-month-old baby. If Marsh is convicted, let's see if he is treated with the same level of vitriol. I can tell you now that he won't be - simply because it is a more common occurrence for a man to kill than for a child. This has nothing to do with ‘levels of evil' - as ever, this is about what shocks us the most. There's a big difference.

[johnf]

Pricey, you are making the mistake of assuming that the tabloids have any interest in objective reporting. They are interested in making money and making money doesn't stit comfortably with establishing truth. Objective reporting is, in 99.9% of cases a distant memory.

There is a world of difference between 'What the public is interested in' and 'What is in th epublic interest'.

[Mr Widnes]

This week the tabloids have been obsessing over one of James Bulger's killers, Jon Venables. It appears that The Sun and the Daily Mirror see it as a national service to uncover his new identity - a feat The Sun claimed to have already accomplished yesterday when they ran the story ‘Bulger killer cover blown'. The paper goes so far as to invite readers to call their newsdesk if they know "why venables has returned to jail..."

This is in fact quite the opposite of a national service. A national service would be to try and benefit the country in some way, shape or form; however, finding Jon Venables' new identity does not do this. Who do you think will foot the £100,000 bill when Venables has to have another secret identity created? It won't be The Sun or the Daily Mirror, that's for sure - they'll be long gone and it will be down to the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

According to a YouGov poll for The Sun on Thursday, three out of four people want the reason for Venables' return to be confirmed, even if it puts him at risk. The key to this poll is the word "want". We may want to know all of this information but we certainly don't need to know. It won't help us digest the shocking and harrowing nature of his crime. It's a simple matter of curiosity rather than necessity and the law doesn't work on that basis. Finding Jon Venables' new identity serves nobody's interest but the media itself. Don't be coerced into the witch-hunt.

I agree that there are some questions that we do need answers to, but instead of asking "who is Venables?", we need to ask "is he a threat?" and "what level of police observation is he under when he's not in prison?"

The question of "what did he do to be taken back to prison?" is also a presumptuous one. The press has speculated on the reason in the last few days, but nothing has been confirmed. Venables hasn't necessarily done anything to break his licence - concerns over his mental state would be enough to see him back behind bars.

It is also interesting to see how Venables is constantly labelled as evil because he took a child's life while he himself was still a child. The Sun's legal expert even said Jon Venables' crime "redefined the extremes of evil."

I'm not going to argue whether Venables is an evil person or not - his crime speaks for itself. But as commentator and author Will Self pointed out this week, surely it is more evil for an adult - who fully comprehends the consequences of his or her actions - to take a life than a 10-year-old boy, who can't fully understand what he is doing?

Anthony Marsh was this week charged with killing his 24-year-old partner and their 10-month-old baby. If Marsh is convicted, let's see if he is treated with the same level of vitriol. I can tell you now that he won't be - simply because it is a more common occurrence for a man to kill than for a child. This has nothing to do with ‘levels of evil' - as ever, this is about what shocks us the most. There's a big difference.

Fantastic post. Can't argue with any of that. I agree with the comments by Will Self - people are judging him today based on his actions retrospectively. It was beyond evil yes but that is where the emotive bit takes over.

The papers clearly know who he is, and they clearly want to the public to know who he is. His name will be out by the end of the week I guarantee it but not through the press, facebook groups are already going around dedicated to finding out who he is and name have been posted on there. I have to say I've been quite intrigued by all of this and I am a victim of being taken in by the media scrum surrounding this and had a look at quite a few articles online that have brought up the case, there is an interesting one in the Daily Fail yesterday about Robert Thompson that was good.

Interesting comments from David Blunkett as well, I didn't agree with the license release in the first place but he is spot on when he says that the identity has to be kept under wraps so as to serve justice on the victims of his latest crime, I think the papers need to respect that but the stories are feeding the public with anger.

It will be fascinating to see how this story develops over the next few days if the papers keep stepping pressure up on the government.

[ozviking]

This week the tabloids have been obsessing over one of James Bulger's killers, Jon Venables. It appears that The Sun and the Daily Mirror see it as a national service to uncover his new identity....

........According to a YouGov poll for The Sun on Thursday, three out of four people want the reason for Venables' return to be confirmed, even if it puts him at risk. ........

.....we need to ask "is he a threat?" and "what level of police observation is he under when he's not in prison?"......

......Venables hasn't necessarily done anything to break his licence - concerns over his mental state would be enough to see him back behind bars.......

.....But as commentator and author Will Self pointed out this week, surely it is more evil for an adult - who fully comprehends the consequences of his or her actions - to take a life than a 10-year-old boy, who can't fully understand what he is doing?...

.......Anthony Marsh was this week charged with killing his 24-year-old partner and their 10-month-old baby. If Marsh is convicted, let's see if he is treated with the same level of vitriol. .........

Quite a lot to address there but I'll take it one point at a time and the summarise what I think:

I'm sure that the tabloids see it as a public service rather than national service, the difference being - the Public ask to know why, and the tablids answer, that's a public service. The Judicial System determined Venabels should be protected in the National interest. There's a big moral difference between the two, as you quite rightly point out but please don't consfuse one for the other. If the public didn't want to know neither the Sun nor the Mirror (and not just the tabloids) wouldn't print it.

You go on to say we DO need to know if he is a threat and what police observation he is under. Well in order to determine if he is a threat someone needs to know what he did. And I, for one, do not want anyone saying - no it's ok, don't worry but you don't need to know. Tell me why he's considered a threat or not. And the level of policing involved is important because if he's policed 24x7 and still taking drugs and collecting Child pornography, still visiting places he's banned from visiting then what the hell are the police doing?

I refer you to my earlier post with regard to the understanding of these two: In summary, they knew (as would most 10 year olds) that to take a child, torture him and leave his body to be cut in half by a train is a bad thing to do. They knew it was wrong because by leaving the body to be driven over they assumed that it would make it look like an accident and that they would not be in trouble for what they'd done.

Given the stories that have come out surrounding this man, there are suggestions he's a drug addict, a child pornography viewer, a violent individual and having a disregard for his condition of "freedom" in that he sought to be in places off limits and by some accounts was telling people who he was. If that's not breaking his license I don't know what is. To be honest, I want to know how he can be monitored and be involved in ANY criminal activity. If the authorities are watching to 'observe' rather than 'police' his behaviour then it begs the question would DOES he have to do to get reigned in? I think, if these stories are true, it does raise questions about whether he should be in allowed to walk free. It also would, in my opinion, tie his current behaviour of disregard for his privileged situation with his disregard for human life when he was 10.

I'm not familiar with the Anthony Marsh case and cannot directly comment on his reasons, but my point in a earlier post suggests the outrage with what Venabales and Thompson did is entiely due to the fact that usually a murder is committed for a reason. Whether it be a crime of passion, retribution, mental instability or any number of reasons. In the case of Thomson and Venables (and Hindley and Brady) the crime was apparently for the sheer hell of it. That's why it's described as evil. In most other cases, God forbid, its possible to imagine where any one of us could have reacted in such a way - given the same circumstances, for instance you find your wife in bed with another man... thankfully most of us don't face that...  but we could see how it may provoke an attack of outrage enough to 'rip someone to pieces'. Just as similarly, its quite common for mothers (and fathers) to have to walk away from a screaming baby after 5 nights of constant wailing. Some weaker people, or those not directly connected - a step father for instance - may not be strong enough to walk away and a small slap becomes a heavy hand and, bang!... too much. I am not condoning it nor trivialising it, but we do have the saying "there but for the grace of God" that's often used about those cases.

There's a world of difference between the two scenarios and thankfully the majority of us CAN control things. A relatively few people cannot. And fewer still would be described as plain evil for having no reason whatsoever, other than sheer devilment, for commiting an atrocity like this. It equates to the same level of disregard for human life as the Germans and the Jews. Hitler and his cronies were evil too.

I fully understand your point, there is a degree of hysteria surrounding this news. Like Vic, I am intrigued by it, but I would not describe myself as "a victim of being taken in by the media scrum". On the contrary, I have chased the news wanting to know what's happening and devouring every piece of it. Again, like Vic and JohnF we have not been bombarded by it through the press and TV coverage. We have actively sought it out. That's a big difference which suggests that we DO want to know and the newspapers provide that service to us.

Since this is primarily a rugby message board, if more people were interested in Rugby League there'd be more coverage in the newspapers. They are commercial enterprises that serve the public curiosity. They do it not to be moralistic deciding soccer is better than Rugby League, they do it to sell more newspapers.
 

[King Viking]

Quite a lot to address there but I'll take it one point at a time and the summarise what I think:

Surely not

Regardless of what's gone on, all this rumour mongering that's going on in the national press can't be helping anybody, least of all Denise Fergus. I notice in The Mirror this morning they've began gossiping about Robert Thompson now too.

[ozviking]

Surely not

Regardless of what's gone on, all this rumour mongering that's going on in the national press can't be helping anybody, least of all Denise Fergus. I notice in The Mirror this morning they've began gossiping about Robert Thompson now too.

But its not rumour that "something" has happened. Since it HAS happened then I personally would like to know. Out of curiosity if nothing else. Not read about Thompson yet, but the same rules apply to him. I'm curious about what's happening with him to.

[Huggybear]

Let's hope the tabloids drive to sell papers doesn't end up in the case being thrown out of court.