http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8546528.stm
I know there has been several discussions regarding rehabilitation and i recall in one thread (can't find it) this person was written about......
wonder what he done?
Looks like the rehab works after all, eh fox?
I cant believe they're still protecting him by not saying what he done and where.
Hopefully that will be him locked up for life anyway.
It could be that they were both re-located close to each other so if details were released it might give those who would like to find them a more specific geographical area in which to look for his mate
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 02, 2010, 09:14:52 PM
I cant believe they're still protecting him by not saying what he done and where.
Hopefully that will be him locked up for life anyway.
Depends what he did. Maybe he didn't pay his tv licence.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 02, 2010, 09:19:29 PM
It could be that they were both re-located close to each other so if details were released it might give those who would like to find them a more specific geographical area in which to look for his mate
I sincerely hope they didnt relocate them close together!
I doubt if it was something like that maiden.
i'd say drugs!
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 02, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 02, 2010, 09:19:29 PM
It could be that they were both re-located close to each other so if details were released it might give those who would like to find them a more specific geographical area in which to look for his mate
I sincerely hope they didnt relocate them close together!
I doubt if it was something like that maiden.
This is one to watch if the media appeal the decision and win the appeal
Quote from: leenie on March 02, 2010, 09:22:07 PM
i'd say drugs!
Yeah I was thinking drugs or alcohol. Bludgeoning a wee fellow to death might play on your conscience.
http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html (http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html)
I wonder how some of those witnesses sleep at night.
They should never have been sent to jail, they were only lads and I'm sure they wouldn't have committed any other crimes.
Quote from: Minder on March 02, 2010, 09:58:39 PM
They should never have been sent to jail, they were only lads and I'm sure they wouldn't have committed any other crimes.
fool ::)
Quote from: leenie on March 02, 2010, 09:05:15 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8546528.stm
I know there has been several discussions regarding rehabilitation and i recall in one thread (can't find it) this person was written about......
wonder what he done?
Fair enough... he broke the terms and went back in. I'm not sure what your point is.
Should everyone released under the Good Friday Agreement be put back in jail because of Torrents Knight?
What about the many others who were released from jails and never re-offended should they all be rounded up now and returned to jail.
Jimmy Boyle has helped work with a lot of young offenders to try and help them mend their ways... we better throw him back in jail...
Jimmy Boyle (born 1944 in Gorbals, Glasgow) is a Scottish sculptor and novelist who was formerly a gangster.
Once reputed to be the most violent man in Scotland, in 1967 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of another gangland figure, William "Babs" Rooney, although Boyle denies that he committed this killing. During his incarceration in the special unit of Barlinnie Prison, he turned to art and wrote an autobiography, A Sense of Freedom (1977), which has since been filmed.
On his release from prison he moved to Edinburgh to continue his artistic career. He designed the largest concrete sculpture in Europe called "Gulliver" for The Craigmillar Festival Society in 1976. The following year he co-wrote the play The Hardman with Tom McGrath, premiered at the Traverse Theatre.
Boyle has also published Pain of Confinement: Prison Diaries (1984), and a novel, Hero of the Underworld (1999). The latter was adapted for a French film, La Rage et le Reve des Condamnes (The Anger and Dreams of the Condemned), and won the best documentary prize at the Fifa Montreal awards in 2002. He also has written a forthcoming novel, A Stolen Smile, which is about the theft of the Mona Lisa and how it ends up hidden on a Scottish housing estate; Disney reportedly bought the film rights.[1]
In 1980, upon his release from prison, he married psychotherapist Sarah Juliet Trevelyan, a daughter of the former British film censor John Trevelyan. They met in the Special Unit of Glasgow's Barlinnie jail, and had two children, Susannah Angela and Kydd...
It's not longfox by the way... :-\
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 02, 2010, 09:49:12 PM
http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html (http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html)
I wonder how some of those witnesses sleep at night.
That's a harrowing read.
The Jamie Bulger case sickened me to the pit of my stomach when it happened and when I got to the line the recounted how he was captured on cctv being led away by the hand it brought that feeling back. How can kids end up acting so evil. Couldn't read on after that sentence.
Quote from: ONeill on March 02, 2010, 10:20:18 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 02, 2010, 09:49:12 PM
http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html (http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html)
I wonder how some of those witnesses sleep at night.
That's a harrowing read.
that sent a chill down my spine...I still can't get my head round how evil humans can be to eachother, never mind children. I have met a lot of unsavoury adults and adolescents through work but those lads are on a different plain altogether, truely horrific stuff.
Do you remember at the time the media tried to blame it on video nasties like Child's Play 3?
The Brits love their scapegoats.
1. You don't know how he broke it
2. Because one person breaks it, that doesn't mean that nobody else should get a chance.
Quote from: ONeill on March 02, 2010, 10:32:48 PM
Do you remember at the time the media tried to blame it on video nasties like Child's Play 3?
The Brits love their scapegoats.
It was obviously society's fault. Two sadistic, warped animals. The story was so bad that even the red tops didn't report some of the more harrowing detail at the time re. the batteries etc.
One of the killers of toddler James Bulger is back behind bars after breaching the conditions of his release from prison.
it states that he breached his conditions rather than break the law... i'd say it could be something like returning to merseyside or perhaps making contact with the family...
i don't know where i stand on this case to be honest and i do believe in rehabilitation...
just wanted to start thread b4 longfox!
Can't say I know how he breached the terms of his release. I could always guess i suppose.
Quote from: leenie on March 02, 2010, 11:43:49 PM
One of the killers of toddler James Bulger is back behind bars after breaching the conditions of his release from prison.
it states that he breached his conditions rather than break the law... i'd say it could be something like returning to merseyside or perhaps making contact with the family...
i don't know where i stand on this case to be honest and i do believe in rehabilitation...
just wanted to start thread b4 longfox!
Now you're winding me up... Lenny
:D :D :D :D :D :D
dude as if i am going to waste time typing your whole name...
also its a good sign if i have shortened your name.... means you are on my "likeable" lists of posters!
Quote from: leenie on March 02, 2010, 11:50:47 PM
:D :D :D :D :D :D
dude as if i am going to waste time typing your whole name...
also its a good sign if i have shortened your name.... means you are on my "likeable" lists of posters!
Just call me ziggy ;)
Quote from: ziggysego on March 02, 2010, 11:54:53 PM
Quote from: leenie on March 02, 2010, 11:50:47 PM
:D :D :D :D :D :D
dude as if i am going to waste time typing your whole name...
also its a good sign if i have shortened your name.... means you are on my "likeable" lists of posters!
Just call me ziggy ;)
zzz...
ahh the poor baby's asleep. ;D
After that magical meeting in Omagh, I've fallen for leenie in a bad way.
Have you decided yet? Fancy getting lunch together?
Ffs will yous stop ruining the thread with shite
I'm just trying to inject a bit of humour Pints.
Quote from: ziggysego on March 03, 2010, 12:03:23 AM
After that magical meeting in Omagh, I've fallen for leenie in a bad way.
Have you decided yet? Fancy getting lunch together?
Ziggy, you'll have to introduce me to lenny, she likes me... shucks :P
Quote from: ziggysego on March 03, 2010, 12:03:23 AM
After that magical meeting in Omagh, I've fallen for leenie in a bad way.
Have you decided yet? Fancy getting lunch together?
you actually did fall the night.,,,,, but that was b4 you met me!
i'll get back to u after the 18th.... flat out at the min!
Quote from: leenie on March 03, 2010, 12:12:52 AM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 03, 2010, 12:03:23 AM
After that magical meeting in Omagh, I've fallen for leenie in a bad way.
Have you decided yet? Fancy getting lunch together?
you actually did fall the night.,,,,, but that was b4 you met me!
i'll get back to u after the 18th.... flat out at the min!
I didn't fall, I was pushed to the floor.
What about me Zig, I haven't seen you since the Mayo game? :'(
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 03, 2010, 12:15:20 AM
What about me Zig, I haven't seen you since the Mayo game? :'(
Yeah, I was going give you a shout about that actually. Fancy getting a sandwich on Thursday afternoon? Our usual spot has closed down though :'(
I don't expect to be about Omagh this week. Been working down the country the last while, maybe will by going through to Derry next week. Will give you a shout...
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 03, 2010, 12:19:32 AM
I don't expect to be about Omagh this week. Been working down the country the last while, maybe will by going through to Derry next week. Will give you a shout...
Mrs Fox still have you tied up to the post outside in the garden?
I've been roaming the countryside looking for fresh chicks 8)
Quote from: Minder on March 02, 2010, 09:58:39 PM
They should never have been sent to jail, they were only lads and I'm sure they wouldn't have committed any other crimes.
Have you ever read what these evil wee wankers inflicted on this child? That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on a discussion form, gobshite!
Quote from: ONeill on March 02, 2010, 10:20:18 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 02, 2010, 09:49:12 PM
http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html (http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html)
I wonder how some of those witnesses sleep at night.
That's a harrowing read.
I had to quit reading, it's brutal.
I was listening to the radio this morning and some "expert" maintained that the breach had to be very serious; he based this on the fact that any leak of a breach on such an emotive issue would invoke a serious media frenzy and have a very detrimental effect to the family of James. He therefore concluded that the breach must be very serious for it to be reported!
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 07:33:05 AM
Quote from: Minder on March 02, 2010, 09:58:39 PM
They should never have been sent to jail, they were only lads and I'm sure they wouldn't have committed any other crimes.
Have you ever read what these evil wee w**kers inflicted on this child? That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on a discussion form, gobshite!
He didn't mean it. You'll learn.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 03, 2010, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 07:33:05 AM
Quote from: Minder on March 02, 2010, 09:58:39 PM
They should never have been sent to jail, they were only lads and I'm sure they wouldn't have committed any other crimes.
Have you ever read what these evil wee w**kers inflicted on this child? That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on a discussion form, gobshite!
He didn't mean it. You'll learn.
Thanks Yoda but I have learned to read, and if that was a joke he's still a gobshite.
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 08:21:43 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 03, 2010, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 07:33:05 AM
Quote from: Minder on March 02, 2010, 09:58:39 PM
They should never have been sent to jail, they were only lads and I'm sure they wouldn't have committed any other crimes.
Have you ever read what these evil wee w**kers inflicted on this child? That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on a discussion form, gobshite!
He didn't mean it. You'll learn.
Thanks Yoda but I have learned to read, and if that was a joke he's still a gobshite.
You'll learn. Yoda
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 08:21:43 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 03, 2010, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 07:33:05 AM
Quote from: Minder on March 02, 2010, 09:58:39 PM
They should never have been sent to jail, they were only lads and I'm sure they wouldn't have committed any other crimes.
Have you ever read what these evil wee w**kers inflicted on this child? That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on a discussion form, gobshite!
He didn't mean it. You'll learn.
Thanks Yoda but I have learned to read, and if that was a joke he's still a gobshite.
it was a dig at another person.
Quote from: ludermor on March 03, 2010, 08:56:08 AM
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 08:21:43 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 03, 2010, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 07:33:05 AM
Quote from: Minder on March 02, 2010, 09:58:39 PM
They should never have been sent to jail, they were only lads and I'm sure they wouldn't have committed any other crimes.
Have you ever read what these evil wee w**kers inflicted on this child? That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever read on a discussion form, gobshite!
He didn't mean it. You'll learn.
Thanks Yoda but I have learned to read, and if that was a joke he's still a gobshite.
You'll learn. Yoda
Learn he will
cash4gold - As you are a new poster I will enforce a humane, catch and release policy.
I know its an old story but it would be a hard situation to deal with...I don't know if I could hold back.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4048957.stm
Quote from: ONeill on March 02, 2010, 10:20:18 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 02, 2010, 09:49:12 PM
http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html (http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_thompson_venables.html)
I wonder how some of those witnesses sleep at night.
That's a harrowing read.
Harrowing indeed. Very, very disturbing.
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 07:41:45 AM
I was listening to the radio this morning and some "expert" maintained that the breach had to be very serious; he based this on the fact that any leak of a breach on such an emotive issue would invoke a serious media frenzy and have a very detrimental effect to the family of James. He therefore concluded that the breach must be very serious for it to be reported!
I caught the end of one news where they were speculating it was a serious breach - something about the fact that certain breaches (serious ones) will mean they can have him back in custody in 2 hours where minor ones it would take 24 hours.
I can't imagine what the family are going through and these c***ts constantly being protected must stick in the throat.
why won't they realise what he done? why protect him?
sorry but imo you just cant rehabilitate evil cnuts like venables & thompson. they should have been hung from the nearest tree for what they did to that poor toddler.
The whole justice systems up the left - apparantly the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe is appealing in court for a date for his parole hearing!!!! If he had been hung from the nearest tree at the time it wouild have saved alot of anguish for the relatives of his victims 20 years later!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ripper-peter-sutcliffe-begins-legal-bid-for-parole-1914017.html
Quote from: clarshack on March 03, 2010, 02:17:50 PM
sorry but imo you just cant rehabilitate evil cnuts like venables & thompson. they should have been hung from the nearest tree for what they did to that poor toddler.
Exactly. I read the article pints linked to, the pair of them knew exactly what they were doing every step of the way. They deliberately deceived adults who were questioning them about Jamie as Jamie was obviously crying at times and was very distressed at times as well. Hanging would have been too good for them
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 06:35:08 PM
Quote from: clarshack on March 03, 2010, 02:17:50 PM
sorry but imo you just cant rehabilitate evil cnuts like venables & thompson. they should have been hung from the nearest tree for what they did to that poor toddler.
Exactly. I read the article pints linked to, the pair of them knew exactly what they were doing every step of the way. They deliberately deceived adults who were questioning them about Jamie as Jamie was obviously crying at times and was very distressed at times as well. Hanging would have been too good for them
FFS catch a grip. Hang them? They were only bits of kids themselves, evil kids but what sort of society would hang a child?
Have you read the details of what they did and how they acted?
Quote from: hardstation on March 03, 2010, 07:36:39 PM
Hang 8 year old kids? Are you mental?
They were nearly 11. Closer to hanging age?
Quote from: hardstation on March 03, 2010, 07:36:39 PM
Hang 8 year old kids? Are you mental?
Put it like this then, they should never have been released
Quote from: ONeill on March 03, 2010, 07:46:13 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 03, 2010, 07:36:39 PM
Hang 8 year old kids? Are you mental?
They were nearly 11. Closer to hanging age?
Didn't the last fella hanged in Britain have a mental age of 10 or something? I think it was a big part in ending executions there?
Quote from: ONeill on March 03, 2010, 07:46:13 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 03, 2010, 07:36:39 PM
Hang 8 year old kids? Are you mental?
They were nearly 11. Closer to hanging age?
Birch them until they were 16, then hang them. That would learn them.
I agree with sentiment though. When people are as obviously warped as these pair then I don't think there is any rehabilitation for them. I presume they had some sort of psychiatric evaluation prior to their release?
Ian Huntley didn't get this call for punishment.
Zap, sorry but that's completely wrong
Quote from: Zapatista on March 03, 2010, 08:35:52 PM
Ian Huntley didn't get this call for punishment.
Ian Huntley is in jail afaik unless he has succeeded in topping himself. The other two aren't.
Cash4gold - Where would you build all these prisons to house these fiends ?
Quote from: Minder on March 03, 2010, 10:56:32 PM
Cash4gold - Where would you build all these prisons to house these fiends ?
Why - do you think ANYONE who abuses a child - an innocent individual who physically cannot protect themselves - should be spared any form of punishment?
Welcome back cash4gold.
The point I am making, and you seem to be missing, is that there isn't a justice systtem anywhere that will incarcerate someone for life for mentally abusing a child. And I would say it is a lesser crime than someone raping a child. Me and my old fashioned views.
Quote from: Minder on March 03, 2010, 11:10:05 PM
The point I am making, and you seem to be missing, is that there isn't a justice systtem anywhere that will incarcerate someone for life for mentally abusing a child. And I would say it is a lesser crime than someone raping a child. Me and my old fashioned views.
Point I am making is ANY crime against a child should be taken VERY serious, is there a more vunerable section of the community?
Quote from: cash4gold on March 03, 2010, 11:08:16 PM
Why do you say that - because I think children should be free from all forms of abuse. Do you think mentally abusing a child is ok?
I assume you will be calling for all irish teachers to be locked up for life for imposing the torture of Peig on the youth of ireland?
Bust up at work.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100304/tuk-bulger-killer-jailed-over-workplace-dba1618.html
Read that on a couple of sites today - are the media not breaking that ban by publishing it?
Surely his latest victim and his work mates now know who he really is (it would be some shock wouldnt it) - just a matter of time until his name and location is out there (it probably is already in whatever locality he was). The media will get wind of his court date, where he's being held and all the rest too.
Worrying thing is they waited until now to lock him up again - an obviously evil character with a drug problem, how could be ever be considered to be dangerous ::)
The little **** doesnt deserve protection
Yes - I can't understand why the authorities revealed that he was back in prison. Whatever about how the papers found out about the reason, he will certainly be rumbled in whatever prison he's in. Not only that, but every 25 to 30 year old who went into prison in the last week is surely in danger of a knife between his ribs.
And it means the authorities will have to spend another fortune on another new identity, if he survives. Maybe they're betting he won't.
authorities only revealed he was back in prison as one of the papers was going to the following day Hardy.
Didn't know that. I'd say his days are numbered anyway. Can't see him surviving prison, unless he's in permanent solitary.
now a sex crime some ballbag this shite is
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100306/tuk-bulger-killer-in-sex-crime-claims-6323e80.html
Quote from: spuds on March 06, 2010, 06:24:24 PM
now a sex crime some ballbag this shite is
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100306/tuk-bulger-killer-in-sex-crime-claims-6323e80.html
Don't be saying that, fox still says they can be rehabilitated ::)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 06, 2010, 06:35:06 PM
Quote from: spuds on March 06, 2010, 06:24:24 PM
now a sex crime some ballbag this shite is
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100306/tuk-bulger-killer-in-sex-crime-claims-6323e80.html
Don't be saying that, fox still says they can be rehabilitated ::)
Of course he's been rehabilitated, he hasn't killed any more kids....... yet.
Quote from: Ball DeBeaver on March 06, 2010, 06:47:26 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 06, 2010, 06:35:06 PM
Quote from: spuds on March 06, 2010, 06:24:24 PM
now a sex crime some ballbag this shite is
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100306/tuk-bulger-killer-in-sex-crime-claims-6323e80.html
Don't be saying that, fox still says they can be rehabilitated ::)
Of course he's been rehabilitated, he hasn't killed any more kids....... yet.
Silly me
Quote from: spuds on March 06, 2010, 06:24:24 PM
now a sex crime some ballbag this shite is
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100306/tuk-bulger-killer-in-sex-crime-claims-6323e80.html
Would be wary of believing anything the Sun says, especially in a situation like this when they basically have free reign to make up whatever they want.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 06, 2010, 06:35:06 PM
Quote from: spuds on March 06, 2010, 06:24:24 PM
now a sex crime some ballbag this shite is
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100306/tuk-bulger-killer-in-sex-crime-claims-6323e80.html
Don't be saying that, fox still says they can be rehabilitated ::)
Fox didn't say that dungbag- I said they deserved the chance at rehabilitation as they were children themselves. Whether they can be is up to the authorities to find out. You have proposed the hanging of ten year olds... Jesus help us.
I have children myself and know wat these boys did was horrific.
You are like the assholes stand outside court houses waving nooses and kicking the side of prison vans....
you care so much about Jamie Bolger, have you writen to his mother with your support or is it just the need to satisfy your own anger and need for vengeance?
You were talking shite about rehabilitation for them 2. Why not just admit it and be done with it?
Aye I was and still think the authorities were right. You were proposing hanging two 10-year-olds. Tell us more about your hanging policy... Birmingham six after they convicted?... the Omagh bombers who killed a load of children after the ceasefires were called...
Or are you just into the mob soundbites for these two?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 06:35:08 PM
Quote from: clarshack on March 03, 2010, 02:17:50 PM
sorry but imo you just cant rehabilitate evil cnuts like venables & thompson. they should have been hung from the nearest tree for what they did to that poor toddler.
Exactly. I read the article pints linked to, the pair of them knew exactly what they were doing every step of the way. They deliberately deceived adults who were questioning them about Jamie as Jamie was obviously crying at times and was very distressed at times as well. Hanging would have been too good for them
???
So you are going to continue talking shite? Fair play
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 07, 2010, 10:23:51 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 06:35:08 PM
Quote from: clarshack on March 03, 2010, 02:17:50 PM
sorry but imo you just cant rehabilitate evil cnuts like venables & thompson. they should have been hung from the nearest tree for what they did to that poor toddler.
Exactly. I read the article pints linked to, the pair of them knew exactly what they were doing every step of the way. They deliberately deceived adults who were questioning them about Jamie as Jamie was obviously crying at times and was very distressed at times as well. Hanging would have been too good for them
The fox makes good points here. AMA , answer the question. Hang 10 year olds ?
???
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100307/tuk-bulger-killer-recalled-over-child-po-45dbed5.html
...and I totally agree with Venables being recalled to prison if he has been at this sh*t, as people seem to be twisting what I said. i just don't buy into the lynch mob menality and believe two 10 year olds should have some hope of redemption and rehabilitation... others don't share that view, so be it... but feel the need to throw it back at me every week like I will change my mind....
Just read Yahoo editors thoughts.
The real pricks are the sun, if they uncover his identity, they have cost tax payers £100,000 in finding a new identity for him.
Really his rehabilitation isn't in question as he hasn't killed anyone.
Quote from: down6061689194 on March 07, 2010, 06:43:02 PM
Just read Yahoo editors thoughts.
The real pricks are the sun, if they uncover his identity, they have cost tax payers £100,000 in finding a new identity for him.
Really his rehabilitation isn't in question as he hasn't killed anyone.
Maybe they should move him in next door to you.
The Fox is spot on with everything he said- you can never eliminate risk but you must minimise it.AMA and POG are full of contradictions but I suppose that's what a discussion board is for.
Quote from: Dubh driocht on March 07, 2010, 07:13:49 PM
The Fox is spot on with everything he said- you can never eliminate risk but you must minimise it.AMA and POG are full of contradictions but I suppose that's what a discussion board is for.
What posts of mine contradict each other?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 07, 2010, 06:52:32 PM
Quote from: down6061689194 on March 07, 2010, 06:43:02 PM
Just read Yahoo editors thoughts.
The real pricks are the sun, if they uncover his identity, they have cost tax payers £100,000 in finding a new identity for him.
Really his rehabilitation isn't in question as he hasn't killed anyone.
Maybe they should move him in next door to you.
Very original Pints... you used the same line with me months ago :P Maybe he did live near you or some other offender who is out on licence... there are loads more than these two....
Suppose to be pictures of child porn he had now - I hope fox and Dubh Driocht keep their children away from them when he moves in beside them.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 06:16:31 PM
Suppose to be pictures of child porn he had now - I hope fox and Dubh Driocht keep their children away from them when he moves in beside them.
In fairness that I'd according to a Sunday rag.
Quote from: Minder on March 08, 2010, 06:47:21 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 06:16:31 PM
Suppose to be pictures of child porn he had now - I hope fox and Dubh Driocht keep their children away from them when he moves in beside them.
In fairness that I'd according to a Sunday rag.
On the ITV news this evening though...
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 06:16:31 PM
I hope fox and Dubh Driocht keep their children away from them when he moves in beside them.
::)
Quote from: ziggysego on March 08, 2010, 07:12:03 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 06:16:31 PM
I hope fox and Dubh Driocht keep their children away from them when he moves in beside them.
::)
Zig, fox can speak for himself.
Some of the shite on this thread is beyond belief.
We live in states that have laws based on what a majority consider to be basic morals of human beings, such as the fact that it is wrong to take a life. I'd like to see all the people advocating hanging two ten year old boys be the ones to release the trapdoor. There's not a one of you would have had the balls to do it.
Do the public in general have a right to know the details of his return to prison? Not in the slightest. Are you in danger from Jon Veneables? No. Does he pose a threat to your child? Very unlikely. Will Self on Question Time last week asked how the general public are in any way worse off by not knowing the details of his return. Can anyone here provide a (mature and coherent) response? This guy spends his life looking over his shoulder and will do until the day he dies, which due to the self-appointed vigilante nature of the red top media will probably be some day in the not too distant future.
This is a traumatic situation for Denise Fergus to be in, and the insatiable media frenzy whipped up does her no good whatsoever. The unfortunate irony in all this is that the media frenzy exists due to the public being unable to resist a gripping story. And that's exactly what this case provides, whether we like it or not. As horrific as the crime was, everybody wants to know every last detail of the case. For all the wrong reasons, it's a story that grips you and and shakes you and holds your attention, and doesn't let go.
Quote
Do the public in general have a right to know the details of his return to prison? Not in the slightest. Are you in danger from Jon Veneables? No. Does he pose a threat to your child? Very unlikely. Will Self on Question Time last week asked how the general public are in any way worse off by not knowing the details of his return. Can anyone here provide a (mature and coherent) response? This guy spends his life looking over his shoulder and will do until the day he dies, which due to the self-appointed vigilante nature of the red top media will probably be some day in the not too distant future.
If anyone else is charged with a crime their name, address and details of the charge are made public. Their court date is public, in most cases their trial is public. The only time details are kept private are in cases when the victim needs their privacy protected, oh and if you've previously beat a toddler to death.
What makes me angry is the constant protection they have received - Why don't you tell us why Venables deserves the protection neither me or you would get.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:22:02 PM
Quote
Do the public in general have a right to know the details of his return to prison? Not in the slightest. Are you in danger from Jon Veneables? No. Does he pose a threat to your child? Very unlikely. Will Self on Question Time last week asked how the general public are in any way worse off by not knowing the details of his return. Can anyone here provide a (mature and coherent) response? This guy spends his life looking over his shoulder and will do until the day he dies, which due to the self-appointed vigilante nature of the red top media will probably be some day in the not too distant future.
If anyone else is charged with a crime their name, address and details of the charge are made public. Their court date is public, in most cases their trial is public. The only time details are kept private are in cases when the victim needs their privacy protected, oh and if you've previously beat a toddler to death.
What makes me angry is the constant protection they have received - Why don't you tell us why Venables deserves the protection neither me or you would get.
Because as a 10 year old, the mob mentality got the better of a lot of people and wanted him dead. Some people may have / would have taken that into their own hands. A 10 year old!!
I'm not condoning what he did, how could anyone. But two wrongs do not make a right. An eye for an eye and all that.
He's not 10 now Zig.
Quote from: ziggysego on March 08, 2010, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:26:34 PM
He's not 10 now Zig.
So it's ok to do him physical damage?
Where did I advocate that? I think he should be locked up for life.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:22:02 PM
Quote
Do the public in general have a right to know the details of his return to prison? Not in the slightest. Are you in danger from Jon Veneables? No. Does he pose a threat to your child? Very unlikely. Will Self on Question Time last week asked how the general public are in any way worse off by not knowing the details of his return. Can anyone here provide a (mature and coherent) response? This guy spends his life looking over his shoulder and will do until the day he dies, which due to the self-appointed vigilante nature of the red top media will probably be some day in the not too distant future.
If anyone else is charged with a crime their name, address and details of the charge are made public. Their court date is public, in most cases their trial is public. The only time details are kept private are in cases when the victim needs their privacy protected, oh and if you've previously beat a toddler to death.
What makes me angry is the constant protection they have received - Why don't you tell us why Venables deserves the protection neither me or you would get.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't read anywhere yet about him being charged with anything.
*Waits for someone to mention about how I "stood up for" Iris Robinson*
Quote from: gallsman on March 08, 2010, 07:30:35 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:22:02 PM
Quote
Do the public in general have a right to know the details of his return to prison? Not in the slightest. Are you in danger from Jon Veneables? No. Does he pose a threat to your child? Very unlikely. Will Self on Question Time last week asked how the general public are in any way worse off by not knowing the details of his return. Can anyone here provide a (mature and coherent) response? This guy spends his life looking over his shoulder and will do until the day he dies, which due to the self-appointed vigilante nature of the red top media will probably be some day in the not too distant future.
If anyone else is charged with a crime their name, address and details of the charge are made public. Their court date is public, in most cases their trial is public. The only time details are kept private are in cases when the victim needs their privacy protected, oh and if you've previously beat a toddler to death.
What makes me angry is the constant protection they have received - Why don't you tell us why Venables deserves the protection neither me or you would get.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't read anywhere yet about him being charged with anything.
*Waits for someone to mention about how I "stood up for" Iris Robinson*
Ok so you think the details should be made public when he's charged?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 08, 2010, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:26:34 PM
He's not 10 now Zig.
So it's ok to do him physical damage?
Where did I advocate that? I think he should be locked up for life.
So do I.
How does your knowledge or lack thereof with respect to whatever he's done to be recalled affect that? Why is it so important that you know what he did rather than being happy knowing he's locked up?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:32:46 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 08, 2010, 07:30:35 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:22:02 PM
Quote
Do the public in general have a right to know the details of his return to prison? Not in the slightest. Are you in danger from Jon Veneables? No. Does he pose a threat to your child? Very unlikely. Will Self on Question Time last week asked how the general public are in any way worse off by not knowing the details of his return. Can anyone here provide a (mature and coherent) response? This guy spends his life looking over his shoulder and will do until the day he dies, which due to the self-appointed vigilante nature of the red top media will probably be some day in the not too distant future.
If anyone else is charged with a crime their name, address and details of the charge are made public. Their court date is public, in most cases their trial is public. The only time details are kept private are in cases when the victim needs their privacy protected, oh and if you've previously beat a toddler to death.
What makes me angry is the constant protection they have received - Why don't you tell us why Venables deserves the protection neither me or you would get.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't read anywhere yet about him being charged with anything.
*Waits for someone to mention about how I "stood up for" Iris Robinson*
Ok so you think the details should be made public when he's charged?
If it's something that actually newsworthy that suggests that he remains a threat to society, such as the child porn allegations, then yes.
If he forgot to pay a parking fine or got into a row at work, then no.
Quote from: gallsman on March 08, 2010, 07:33:27 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 08, 2010, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:26:34 PM
He's not 10 now Zig.
So it's ok to do him physical damage?
Where did I advocate that? I think he should be locked up for life.
So do I.
How does your knowledge or lack thereof with respect to whatever he's done to be recalled affect that? Why is it so important that you know what he did rather than being happy knowing he's locked up?
I've stated my reasons in my previous post. I'm still waiting on you to answer it.
fox what is wrong with you?
Here are my contributions to this thread so far, in order, just for you because it seems you are slow
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 06:35:08 PM
Quote from: clarshack on March 03, 2010, 02:17:50 PM
sorry but imo you just cant rehabilitate evil cnuts like venables & thompson. they should have been hung from the nearest tree for what they did to that poor toddler.
Exactly. I read the article pints linked to, the pair of them knew exactly what they were doing every step of the way. They deliberately deceived adults who were questioning them about Jamie as Jamie was obviously crying at times and was very distressed at times as well. Hanging would have been too good for them
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 07:23:51 PM
Have you read the details of what they did and how they acted?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 07:51:27 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 03, 2010, 07:36:39 PM
Hang 8 year old kids? Are you mental?
Put it like this then, they should never have been released
Stop harping on about the first thing I said and concentrate. I am entitled to change my mind, that's what discussion often brings about in adults
gallsman, the fact he has been recalled means it is something serious
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 08, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
gallsman, the fact he has been recalled means it is something serious
Ah, so we'll just resort to presumption instead of facts and evidence?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:36:44 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 08, 2010, 07:33:27 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 08, 2010, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:26:34 PM
He's not 10 now Zig.
So it's ok to do him physical damage?
Where did I advocate that? I think he should be locked up for life.
So do I.
How does your knowledge or lack thereof with respect to whatever he's done to be recalled affect that? Why is it so important that you know what he did rather than being happy knowing he's locked up?
I've stated my reasons in my previous post. I'm still waiting on you to answer it.
Answer what????
If anyone else is charged with a crime their name, address and details of the charge are made public. Their court date is public, in most cases their trial is public. The only time details are kept private are in cases when the victim needs their privacy protected, oh and if you've previously beat a toddler to death.
What makes me angry is the constant protection they have received - Why don't you tell us why Venables deserves the protection neither me or you would get.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 08, 2010, 07:47:02 PM
fox what is wrong with you?
Here are my contributions to this thread so far, in order, just for you because it seems you are slow
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 06:35:08 PM
Quote from: clarshack on March 03, 2010, 02:17:50 PM
sorry but imo you just cant rehabilitate evil cnuts like venables & thompson. they should have been hung from the nearest tree for what they did to that poor toddler.
Exactly. I read the article pints linked to, the pair of them knew exactly what they were doing every step of the way. They deliberately deceived adults who were questioning them about Jamie as Jamie was obviously crying at times and was very distressed at times as well. Hanging would have been too good for them
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 07:23:51 PM
Have you read the details of what they did and how they acted?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 03, 2010, 07:51:27 PM
Quote from: hardstation on March 03, 2010, 07:36:39 PM
Hang 8 year old kids? Are you mental?
Put it like this then, they should never have been released
Stop harping on about the first thing I said and concentrate. I am entitled to change my mind, that's what discussion often brings about in adults
If you keep harping back to what I said... well ditto... hang them says you... (at 10-years-old)
Rehabilitate them says fox ::)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 08, 2010, 07:58:30 PM
Rehabilitate them says fox ::)
hang two ten years olds says Armaghabu :o ...
I give up even trying to debate with you fox, once you get something in your head you are impossible. I have given my opinion very clearly on this thread twice, I won't repeat it just because you are thick
It's not about the protection of Venables- it's about the protection of the public.No-one is going to hang children so when the courts made a decision to release him at 18 and it was clearly better to have checks and balances in place than not.He's obviously a risk again so they are right to bring him back in so no-one else is put at risk. I don't think the Fox said he is rehabilitated-clearly he's not.However, surely it's better to have these systems in place than not ?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:52:47 PM
Why don't you tell us why Venables deserves the protection neither me or you would get.[/i]
If you'd murdered a two year old when you were ten I'm fairly sure they'd protect you too.
He hasn't been charged with any crime yet, so what right to you have to know about what he's alleged to have done?
Quote from: gallsman on March 08, 2010, 09:25:13 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:52:47 PM
Why don't you tell us why Venables deserves the protection neither me or you would get.[/i]
If you'd murdered a two year old when you were ten I'm fairly sure they'd protect you too.
He hasn't been charged with any crime yet, so what right to you have to know about what he's alleged to have done?
I'm not talking about his protection when he's ten, I'm talking about his protection now and when he is charged.
What right has he to be protected at the age of 27 if he's charged with a crime? No one else would get the same protection.
Despite several attempts to try and get you to answer this you havent been able to, that's says it all.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 09:31:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 08, 2010, 09:25:13 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:52:47 PM
Why don't you tell us why Venables deserves the protection neither me or you would get.[/i]
If you'd murdered a two year old when you were ten I'm fairly sure they'd protect you too.
He hasn't been charged with any crime yet, so what right to you have to know about what he's alleged to have done?
I'm not talking about his protection when he's ten, I'm talking about his protection now and when he is charged.
What right has he to be protected at the age of 27 if he's charged with a crime? No one else would get the same protection.
Despite several attempts to try and get you to answer this you havent been able to, that's says it all.
I've now pointed out to you twice that he hasn't yet been charged with a fresh crime.
I also stated that if he is charged with a serious, newsworthy offence I would have no problem with the information being published.
Like I said to ardmachabu, you keep talking about
when he's charged. Why do you have to know
now? More importantly, why do you have the right to know
now?
You can add hypocrisy to the list of offences you're often accused of on this board. I've asked you a question several times, yet you've refused to answer it.
Quote from: gallsman on March 08, 2010, 09:38:50 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 09:31:54 PM
Quote from: gallsman on March 08, 2010, 09:25:13 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:52:47 PM
Why don't you tell us why Venables deserves the protection neither me or you would get.[/i]
If you'd murdered a two year old when you were ten I'm fairly sure they'd protect you too.
He hasn't been charged with any crime yet, so what right to you have to know about what he's alleged to have done?
I'm not talking about his protection when he's ten, I'm talking about his protection now and when he is charged.
What right has he to be protected at the age of 27 if he's charged with a crime? No one else would get the same protection.
Despite several attempts to try and get you to answer this you havent been able to, that's says it all.
I've now pointed out to you twice that he hasn't yet been charged with a fresh crime.
I also stated that if he is charged with a serious, newsworthy offence I would have no problem with the information being published.
Like I said to ardmachabu, you keep talking about when he's charged. Why do you have to know now? More importantly, why do you have the right to know now?
You can add hypocrisy to the list of offences you're often accused of on this board. I've asked you a question several times, yet you've refused to answer it.
What are you arguing with me for then?
This isn't about a right to know either, it's about a right that we're all treated equally under the law.
gallsman, we should wait and see - the reason he was recalled may become known after any trial
I am certain he has done something to warrant being recalled and that's why it has happened and been made known to the public. I am equally sure that Straw is right in his decision at this time because to do so otherwise would be to prejudice the trial proceedings.
Regardless of the baying mobs people don't have a right to know what he did, and that includes Bulgers mother.
Quote from: Minder on March 08, 2010, 09:55:22 PM
Regardless of the baying mobs people don't have a right to know what he did, and that includes Bulgers mother.
Well then they need to stop releasing details on EVERYONE charged.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 09:58:46 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 08, 2010, 09:55:22 PM
Regardless of the baying mobs people don't have a right to know what he did, and that includes Bulgers mother.
Well then they need to stop releasing details on EVERYONE charged.
Surely you see the difference here that he was given a new idendity so it is not the same as Joe Bloggs drink driving?
Quote from: Minder on March 08, 2010, 10:00:54 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 09:58:46 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 08, 2010, 09:55:22 PM
Regardless of the baying mobs people don't have a right to know what he did, and that includes Bulgers mother.
Well then they need to stop releasing details on EVERYONE charged.
Surely you see the difference here that he was given a new idendity so it is not the same as Joe Bloggs drink driving?
No. He shouldnt be protected anymore as far as I'm concerned.
POG you talk some rubbish.
The original anonimity order should have included a very clear clause for both boys who killed the wee lad that if they as much as jaywalked in the future, and were convicted in court, then their anonymity would lapse forthwith, as they'd used up their last chance
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 08, 2010, 10:10:10 PM
POG you talk some rubbish.
Fantastic contribution to the discussion, clearly from someone with no intelligence to make a point.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 10:14:56 PM
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 08, 2010, 10:10:10 PM
POG you talk some rubbish.
Fantastic contribution to the discussion, clearly from someone with no intelligence to make a point.
The rest of the lads contributing and countering your very stupid argument that every case should be treated the same are doing a stellar job on showing how much of an idiotic idea it would be to release details of a highly sensitive case to the general public. My intelligence is not needed here just wanted you to know how little insight you really have, that's all.
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 08, 2010, 10:19:11 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 10:14:56 PM
Quote from: DennistheMenace on March 08, 2010, 10:10:10 PM
POG you talk some rubbish.
Fantastic contribution to the discussion, clearly from someone with no intelligence to make a point.
The rest of the lads contributing and countering your very stupid argument that every case should be treated the same are doing a stellar job on showing how much of an idiotic idea it would be to release details of a highly sensitive case to the general public. My intelligence is not needed here just wanted you to know how little insight you really have, that's all.
Sorry I should have said in my last post, I have no interest in talking to you if the only contribution you have is to act like a simpleton.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 08, 2010, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 07:26:34 PM
He's not 10 now Zig.
So it's ok to do him physical damage?
Where did I advocate that? I think he should be locked up for life.
I said "Because as a 10 year old, the mob mentality got the better of a lot of people and wanted him dead. Some people may have / would have taken that into their own hands. A 10 year old!!"
To which the only defense you gave was that he's not 10 now. Nothing else, but he's not 10 now. Nothing about people wanting him harm or death.
PS I didn't say
you.
Yes ziggy, you were arguing he should be protected as a 10 year old (or at least that's what I thought you were saying) and I was saying he's not 10 now.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 10:40:25 PM
Yes ziggy, you were arguing he should be protected as a 10 year old (or at least that's what I thought you were saying) and I was saying he's not 10 now.
Sorry, see what you meant now.
I don't think harm should come to anyone, no matter how heinous the crime and the murder was amongst some of the worse I know of. However to see people lose all sense and wit, calling on for the heads of two 10 year olds... well it's just something that was satired more than once on The Simpsons. Only, rather than being funny, it was distressing and a sad reflection on so-called civilised society.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 08, 2010, 08:09:03 PM
I give up even trying to debate with you fox, once you get something in your head you are impossible. I have given my opinion very clearly on this thread twice, I won't repeat it just because you are thick
Cop out again. You're obsessed with me agreeing that the authorities should have tried to rehabiliate these boys. Get over it. That's what I think. Seems in Venables case it ain't working. So you have changed your mind about hanging them when they were ten... good man... it wasn't a great idea was it :o
To all that are guessing what Venerable might have done or claiming to know what he did because they read it in X newspaper or saw it on News Channel Y, this following clip might be interesting to watch. Go to 6.15 onwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cT0TSp9Mm0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cT0TSp9Mm0)
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 09:58:46 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 08, 2010, 09:55:22 PM
Regardless of the baying mobs people don't have a right to know what he did, and that includes Bulgers mother.
Well then they need to stop releasing details on EVERYONE charged.
For the last fecking time he hasn't been charged yet!
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2010, 11:14:24 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 09:58:46 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 08, 2010, 09:55:22 PM
Regardless of the baying mobs people don't have a right to know what he did, and that includes Bulgers mother.
Well then they need to stop releasing details on EVERYONE charged.
For the last fecking time he hasn't been charged yet!
If he does get charged they can release his details like everyone and sure no one will be any wiser. What POG and others want is his anonymity to be removed and his new identity revealed, which is completely different.
Not defending him by any means but I can understand why the courts/home secretary etc.... should not release his new identity. Everyone and I mean everyone is entitled to a fair trail without prejudice or otherwise the legal system is a sham (I sure we all know of a few high profile miscarrages of justice ;)). The f**king crusading red tops and baying mob could prejudice this whole case and he'll never get a fair trial (at the very least argue he never did). Some may say so fcuk but when he drags it though the legal system with huge cost to the tax payers and a large sum of compententsation at the end (and I have no doubt he will win); then answer me this, has it been worth it just to satisfy a few headcases and sell a few shitty newspapers like the sun?
Who will be the papers and mob be yapping at then? The same people they are yapping at for not revealing his new identity thats who.
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2010, 11:14:24 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 08, 2010, 09:58:46 PM
Quote from: Minder on March 08, 2010, 09:55:22 PM
Regardless of the baying mobs people don't have a right to know what he did, and that includes Bulgers mother.
Well then they need to stop releasing details on EVERYONE charged.
For the last fecking time he hasn't been charged yet!
I know that, why do you keep saying it?
Because you keep implying that details are routinely released on people who haven't been charged with a crime....
More food for thought.... let's keep to the subject and not personal attacks... :o
Venables should 'have a chance' says his ex-solicitor
Jon Venables' former solicitor Laurence Lee: ''It's very hard to brand a child as evil''
Jon Venables' former solicitor urged the justice system not to "give up" on the child killer - recalled to prison over "serious allegations".
Laurence Lee told the BBC it was "very hard to class a child as evil" and he still had the right to a chance of rehabilitation.
Venables, 27, who murdered James Bulger in 1993, is under risk of attack as the "media hype" continues, Mr Lee said.
The justice secretary has refused to divulge why Venables has been recalled.
Jack Straw told the House of Commons it was in the interests of justice and that disclosure of the allegations could prejudice any further action taken against him.
Mr Lee, who represented a 10-year-old Venables throughout his trial said he agreed with Straw's decision adding that Venables had the right to be tried in a "normal democratic manner".
'Venables is at a greater risk, the more the hype and the speculation continue, the more chance his cover is going to be blown.
"He's in prison but at the moment it's a security tinder box, a real hot potato has been created here and I can only hope that things start to die down.
"If there is a trial and he is convicted, he will be punished and his chances of release will be greatly reduced."
Baroness Butler-Sloss, who originally made the decision to grant anonymity to James Bulger's two killers on their 2001 release, has warned that Venables would be at risk from vigilantes if his new identity is revealed.
Mr Lee said he was "flabbergasted" that Venables had breached the terms of his licence, but he said someone even with "nerves of steel" would find it extremely difficult to start a new life with a new identity.
Jon Venables was given a new identity on his release from prison
"The pressures on him to live this lie and constantly have to lie to make friends and fit in with society, I think are what made him breach his licence."
Denise Fergus, James' mother, told ITV's This Morning she found it hard to even say Venables' name and that she had the right to know what he is currently accused of.
She said it would not "take the pain away" but would reassure her.
"I am sick of them closing doors in my face. It's about time they started telling me what I think I should know.
"As James's mother I have a right to know."
I personally dont feel anyone has the right to know what he has done this time that includes Denise Fergus :-\
Quote from: tyrone girl on March 09, 2010, 02:59:01 PM
I personally dont feel anyone has the right to know what he has done this time that includes Denise Fergus :-\
Agreed, it could make it very easy for people to work out his new identity or even worse jurors on other similar cases making a dangerous assumption and prejudiced decisions regarding a case.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 09, 2010, 02:49:57 PM
More food for thought.... let's keep to the subject and not personal attacks... :o
Venables should 'have a chance' says his ex-solicitor
Jon Venables' former solicitor Laurence Lee: ''It's very hard to brand a child as evil''
Jon Venables' former solicitor urged the justice system not to "give up" on the child killer - recalled to prison over "serious allegations".
Laurence Lee told the BBC it was "very hard to class a child as evil" and he still had the right to a chance of rehabilitation.
Venables, 27, who murdered James Bulger in 1993, is under risk of attack as the "media hype" continues, Mr Lee said.
The justice secretary has refused to divulge why Venables has been recalled.
Jack Straw told the House of Commons it was in the interests of justice and that disclosure of the allegations could prejudice any further action taken against him.
Mr Lee, who represented a 10-year-old Venables throughout his trial said he agreed with Straw's decision adding that Venables had the right to be tried in a "normal democratic manner".
'Venables is at a greater risk, the more the hype and the speculation continue, the more chance his cover is going to be blown.
"He's in prison but at the moment it's a security tinder box, a real hot potato has been created here and I can only hope that things start to die down.
"If there is a trial and he is convicted, he will be punished and his chances of release will be greatly reduced."
Baroness Butler-Sloss, who originally made the decision to grant anonymity to James Bulger's two killers on their 2001 release, has warned that Venables would be at risk from vigilantes if his new identity is revealed.
Mr Lee said he was "flabbergasted" that Venables had breached the terms of his licence, but he said someone even with "nerves of steel" would find it extremely difficult to start a new life with a new identity.
Jon Venables was given a new identity on his release from prison
"The pressures on him to live this lie and constantly have to lie to make friends and fit in with society, I think are what made him breach his licence."
Denise Fergus, James' mother, told ITV's This Morning she found it hard to even say Venables' name and that she had the right to know what he is currently accused of.
She said it would not "take the pain away" but would reassure her.
"I am sick of them closing doors in my face. It's about time they started telling me what I think I should know.
"As James's mother I have a right to know."
I'd agree - why exactly does she have a right to know?
Quote from: gallsman on March 09, 2010, 02:49:17 PM
Because you keep implying that details are routinely released on people who haven't been charged with a crime....
No I don't
I give up pints, it's like talking to a wall. You have refused to provide an answer time and time again on why the detail should be released even though he hasn't yet been charged. If you're on the wind-up, congratulations, you've had me for a day or so.
QuoteI'd agree - why exactly does she have a right to know?
She doesn't. As harsh as it may seem, there should be no attempt made to risk the credibility of the justice system in order to accommodate Denise Fergus, despite the torment she has clearly gone and continues to go through. She has my sympathies, but I don't agree she has the right to know. Unfortunately, the tabloids have never much cared for stability and credibility of the overall system and often focus on the individual aspects.
QuoteI give up pints, it's like talking to a wall. You have refused to provide an answer time and time again on why the detail should be released even though he hasn't yet been charged.
I think his details should be released after he's charged - I've given my reasons for that.
I think what he has done should be made public if he is convicted and is going back to jail for the long haul, but not if it is a minor offence. The tabloids have thrown out about four different offences here and know they can't defame him no matter what they say.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 02, 2010, 09:14:52 PM
I cant believe they're still protecting him by not saying what he done and where.
Hopefully that will be him locked up for life anyway.
Posted when this story broke. No mention of the fact that he hadn't yet been charged. When you don't clarify things, people tend to get frustrated...
pints,gallsman,you both seem to be picking each other up wrong.gallsman,you think his offence should be made public if he's charged with a serious crime,and so does pints.pints is saying that,if he does get charged with something serious,the details will not be released.so whether he has been charged or not,details wont be released.pints wants to know,why he will have this protection if he is charged?and so do i.
Quote from: Dougal on March 09, 2010, 06:41:35 PM
pints,gallsman,you both seem to be picking each other up wrong.gallsman,you think his offence should be made public if he's charged with a serious crime,and so does pints.pints is saying that,if he does get charged with something serious,the details will not be released.so whether he has been charged or not,details wont be released.pints wants to know,why he will have this protection if he is charged?and so do i.
Apparently so, but when people don't make things clear it causes a problem. As I pointed out, Pints first contribution to this thread was
QuoteI cant believe they're still protecting him by not saying what he done and where.
Hopefully that will be him locked up for life anyway.
That seems to make it very clear that he believes the details should have been released, prior to the charging. If this isn't the case, perhaps he should work a bit harder at posting what he does mean ;)
What are you on about - I thought everything was cleared up in our discussion on page 8 of this thread last night.
And today you start with the "he hasn't been charged yet" nonsense after us being over that last night.
Never mind me not making myself clear it seems you suffer from memory loss.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 09, 2010, 07:04:32 PM
What are you on about - I thought everything was cleared up in our discussion on page 8 of this thread last night.
And today you start with the "he hasn't been charged yet" nonsense after us being over that last night.
Never mind me not making myself clear it seems you suffer from memory loss.
Ah, I give up. I mean it this time.
As things stand, he hasn't been charged so you have the right to f**k all.
If he is charged with a serious crime, well I'll just wait and see what happens, but you appear to have decided for yourself what's going to happen. As he was on licence, he doesn't have to be charged to justify his recall, therefore Straw's position is correct.
You've your head stuck in the sand if you think they'd do all this if they hadn't evidence to charge him.
I dont mind them not giving the details until he's charged.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 09, 2010, 07:16:15 PM
You've your head stuck in the sand if you think they'd do all this if they hadn't evidence to charge him.
I dont mind them not giving the details until he's charged.
Thank you.
Rumour has it Mr Venables aka David Calvert who was residing in Fleetwood near Blackpool supposedly raped a 19 yr old girl on school grounds near Warrington... :-\
Get that off the f**king board!
Quote from: sammymaguire on March 09, 2010, 10:09:05 PM
Rumour has it Mr Venables aka David Calvert who was residing in Fleetwood near Blackpool supposedly raped a 19 yr old girl on school grounds near Warrington... :-\
http://blogs.news.sky.com/lifeofcrime/Post:378d3257-3ea1-4744-b8fc-5ec63dca9413
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 09, 2010, 10:12:24 PM
Get that off the f**king board!
relax man, only a rumour... hearsay, alleged, i'd say its you who needs to get off ths f**king board tho
Quote from: sammymaguire on March 09, 2010, 10:15:48 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 09, 2010, 10:12:24 PM
Get that off the f**king board!
relax man, only a rumour... hearsay, alleged, i'd say its you who needs to get off ths f**king board tho
Pints is right in this case, you shouldn't be posting name's on the Internet. Rumours or not.
Quote from: ziggysego on March 09, 2010, 10:18:14 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on March 09, 2010, 10:15:48 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 09, 2010, 10:12:24 PM
Get that off the f**king board!
relax man, only a rumour... hearsay, alleged, i'd say its you who needs to get off ths f**king board tho
Pints is right in this case, you shouldn't be posting name's on the Internet. Rumours or not.
cheshire constabulary on here regularly? its ok to debate paul galvin's persona in a public domain which he
might come across but not a random name of someone whom may or may not even exist? and IF it was venables who did this and this is his new name, whats the big deal? ???
Quote from: sammymaguire on March 09, 2010, 10:23:37 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 09, 2010, 10:18:14 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on March 09, 2010, 10:15:48 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 09, 2010, 10:12:24 PM
Get that off the f**king board!
relax man, only a rumour... hearsay, alleged, i'd say its you who needs to get off ths f**king board tho
Pints is right in this case, you shouldn't be posting name's on the Internet. Rumours or not.
cheshire constabulary on here regularly? its ok to debate paul galvin's persona in a public domain which he might come across but not a random name of someone whom may or may not even exist? and IF it was venables who did this and this is his new name, whats the big deal? ???
In this case, I'm thinking of David Calvert.
Quote from: ziggysego on March 09, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on March 09, 2010, 10:23:37 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 09, 2010, 10:18:14 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on March 09, 2010, 10:15:48 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 09, 2010, 10:12:24 PM
Get that off the f**king board!
relax man, only a rumour... hearsay, alleged, i'd say its you who needs to get off ths f**king board tho
Pints is right in this case, you shouldn't be posting name's on the Internet. Rumours or not.
cheshire constabulary on here regularly? its ok to debate paul galvin's persona in a public domain which he might come across but not a random name of someone whom may or may not even exist? and IF it was venables who did this and this is his new name, whats the big deal? ???
In this case, I'm thinking of David Calvert.
Venables is in custody... so do you think someone will tell him his secret is out and its on here? or will the real Dave Calvert come on here and say thanks for proving once and for all he is an innocent man!?!
Quote from: sammymaguire on March 09, 2010, 10:29:20 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 09, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on March 09, 2010, 10:23:37 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 09, 2010, 10:18:14 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on March 09, 2010, 10:15:48 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 09, 2010, 10:12:24 PM
Get that off the f**king board!
relax man, only a rumour... hearsay, alleged, i'd say its you who needs to get off ths f**king board tho
Pints is right in this case, you shouldn't be posting name's on the Internet. Rumours or not.
cheshire constabulary on here regularly? its ok to debate paul galvin's persona in a public domain which he might come across but not a random name of someone whom may or may not even exist? and IF it was venables who did this and this is his new name, whats the big deal? ???
In this case, I'm thinking of David Calvert.
Venables is in custody... so do you think someone will tell him his secret is out and its on here? or will the real Dave Calvert come on here and say thanks for proving once and for all he is an innocent man!?!
What? :o
Ack, I can't be bothered anymore. This thread makes me angry.
Quote from: ziggysego on March 09, 2010, 10:34:20 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on March 09, 2010, 10:29:20 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 09, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on March 09, 2010, 10:23:37 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 09, 2010, 10:18:14 PM
Quote from: sammymaguire on March 09, 2010, 10:15:48 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 09, 2010, 10:12:24 PM
Get that off the f**king board!
relax man, only a rumour... hearsay, alleged, i'd say its you who needs to get off ths f**king board tho
Pints is right in this case, you shouldn't be posting name's on the Internet. Rumours or not.
cheshire constabulary on here regularly? its ok to debate paul galvin's persona in a public domain which he might come across but not a random name of someone whom may or may not even exist? and IF it was venables who did this and this is his new name, whats the big deal? ???
In this case, I'm thinking of David Calvert.
Venables is in custody... so do you think someone will tell him his secret is out and its on here? or will the real Dave Calvert come on here and say thanks for proving once and for all he is an innocent man!?!
What? :o
Ack, I can't be bothered anymore. This thread makes me angry.
Tell me about it... Leenie uses my name to title and start the thread :-\
fair enough but whatever the guy has done to be banged up again (and it is worrying the authorities are being so tight lipped about this too) he's a real bad egg at the end of the day who is better off behind bars
Quote from: sammymaguire on March 09, 2010, 10:40:40 PM
fair enough but whatever the guy has done to be banged up again (and it is worrying the authorities are being so tight lipped about this too) he's a real bad egg at the end of the day who is better off behind bars
I'll agree with you there. If it is a bad as the newspapers are making out, he deserves to be back in prison.
However the core of the argument for me was, it doesn't mean rehabilitation should be done away with altogether.
I have some experience in the field of rehabilitation from working with young offenders in different projects in west Belfast over the course of about 12 years. The projects I worked for had strong links with both probation service and social services, the idea behind them was about diverting at least some of them from anti-social/para-military behaviour in the form of car thieving etc We had some success as what was really needed was for those kids offending to just wise up and get a life. It happens to everyone eventually mostly. I get a kick these days when I am out shopping with the Mrs these days and somebody from the projects I worked with recognises me and says hello and offers to buy me a pint
I know all about Jimmy Boyle, he was an example I used manys a time. However, what venables and thompson did must make the 2 of them lie awake at night. Have you all read the account? It's harrowing stuff but it's worth reading to see the different incidents of deception that pair went through in order to carry out what was obviously a planned attack on a 2 year old. They changed their story to suit the occasion on more than once in that couple of hours they had that 2 year old. I don't care how bad their childhood was, it doesn't excuse what they did. They knew what they were doing was wrong every step of the way but continued regardless, they knew they were wrong and that's why they lied to adults when challenged several times
There is no rehabilitating what they became when they bludgeoned a toddler and left him to die on a raiilway track
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 09, 2010, 11:15:56 PM
I have some experience in the field of rehabilitation from working with young offenders in different projects in west Belfast over the course of about 12 years. The projects I worked for had strong links with both probation service and social services, the idea behind them was about diverting at least some of them from anti-social/para-military behaviour in the form of car thieving etc We had some success as what was really needed was for those kids offending to just wise up and get a life. It happens to everyone eventually mostly. I get a kick these days when I am out shopping with the Mrs these days and somebody from the projects I worked with recognises me and says hello and offers to buy me a pint
I know all about Jimmy Boyle, he was an example I used manys a time. However, what venables and thompson did must make the 2 of them lie awake at night. Have you all read the account? It's harrowing stuff but it's worth reading to see the different incidents of deception that pair went through in order to carry out what was obviously a planned attack on a 2 year old. They changed their story to suit the occasion on more than once in that couple of hours they had that 2 year old. I don't care how bad their childhood was, it doesn't excuse what they did. They knew what they were doing was wrong every step of the way but continued regardless, they knew they were wrong and that's why they lied to adults when challenged several times
There is no rehabilitating what they became when they bludgeoned a toddler and left him to die on a raiilway track
In the hope that we can stick to the subject matter this time... if Thompson never offends again and leads an ordinary life (as child killer Mary Bell from the sixties did-its on websites) does that not point to his rehabilitation being sucessful?
It would, though I won't hold my breath, by the account I read he was the main instigator of the attack and he was also the one who lied when confronted by adults. It seems to me from that version of events that he got venables involved rather than the other way round
I would be very surprised if he doesn't do something that lands him back in jail as well.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 10, 2010, 09:15:02 AM
It would, though I won't hold my breath, by the account I read he was the main instigator of the attack and he was also the one who lied when confronted by adults. It seems to me from that version of events that he got venables involved rather than the other way round
I would be very surprised if he doesn't do something that lands him back in jail as well.
Ah ardmhachaabu, I see you're up to your old mystic meg stunts again!
According to Mondays Irish News, Venables was living in South Armagh up until he was arrested. I am sure he felt right at home.
One of the two killers of Merseyside toddler James Bulger has been charged with possession and distribution of indecent images of children.
Jon Venables, who killed James in 1993, was released from jail in 2001 and given a new identity and anonymity for life under a special court order.
But Venables, now 27, was recalled to prison in February after allegedly breaching the terms of his licence.
He is charged with two offences under the 1978 Protection of Children Act.
It is alleged that he downloaded 57 indecent images of children between February 2009 and February 2010.
He is secondly accused of distributing seven images between 1 and 23 February this year by allowing other people to access files on his computer.
The case is at a very early stage and will return to court on 23 July. That hearing will be the first opportunity for Venables to indicate whether he will be pleading guilty or not guilty to the alleged offences.
Were he to plead not guilty, he would eventually appear before a jury under his new name. If he pleads guilty, the case will quickly move to sentencing.
In March, the then Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced that Venables had been returned to prison but said that it was not in the interests of a fair trial to publicise what had allegedly happened.
Under the terms of the anonymity order, the media is not allowed to report anything about Venables' new identity or his whereabouts.
Venables and his friend Robert Thompson were jailed for life when, as 10-year-olds, they took two-year-old James from a shopping centre in Bootle.
The toddler's body was found on a disused railway line more than two miles away from where he had been taken.
Venables and Thompson were given new identities on their release from prison in 2001 because of the risk that they would be victims of a vigilante attack.
Following Venables' return to prison in February, Mr Straw told MPs that it was not in the interests of justice for any details of the alleged offences to be publicised because any indication of who Venables was would prevent a fair trial.
Denise Fergus, James Bulger's mother, had called for the reason for the recall to be made public, saying as his mother she had "a right to know".
lock him up and throw away the key
Seriously disturbed individual. Needs to be locked up for the safety of all kids. If 17years 'rehabilitation' hasnt helped so far, its safe to say this guy will ever be a functioning member of society.
Venables pleads guilty
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10735857
Surely if Venables is convicted of the latest offence his license will be suspended?
Quote from: nrico2006 on July 23, 2010, 11:46:19 AM
Surely if Venables is convicted of the latest offence his license will be suspended?
he got two years and after 1 it will be up to the parole board to see what way to treat the license
Quote from: Square Ball on July 23, 2010, 12:31:11 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on July 23, 2010, 11:46:19 AM
Surely if Venables is convicted of the latest offence his license will be suspended?
he got two years and after 1 it will be up to the parole board to see what way to treat the license
Crazy, you would imagine that anyone out on license (be it via GFA or the one Venables is out on) would be sent back for good if they committed any time of offence, irrelevant of how serious it was.
That's the way the system works nrico.
The individual who murdered a loved one of mine completed 3 1/2 years of a 8 year sentence, on the back of multiple other criminal offences. Had it been some US states, he would never have have had the chance to murder as he would have been in jail for a very long time. Regrettably, we don't have the same system as some US states
The fox has been quiet of late. I wonder did farmer Boggins get him.
Sorry to report Farmer Boggins did not get him. I saw what I think is half of him lying on the Omagh road last week-end. RIP fox. :'(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11692852 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11692852)
is longrunthe fox permenantly gone?
im lost with this?
Most defnitely not one and the same person as i know both.
3. Revealing a posters personal identity.
An inherent part of most discussion boards is that members may choose to adopt an alias, if they wish, as their board username. This choice of anonymity must be
respected and any move to identify the real life identity of a poster on this board, where they have not done so themselves, is a breach of board rules.
Penalties - 1st Offence - 15 Day Ban, Second Offence - Permanent Ban
Lads, I've been advised that what ye are posting here is incorrect, but even if it weren't it is completely against the above rule. This is the last warning about this. thanks
Can i just add an above poster is a fecking arsehole for trying to start crap like that! He knows who he is