rehabilitation.... longfox this is 4 u!

[gallsman]

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.

[pintsofguinness]

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.

[ardmhachaabu]

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.

[Minder]

Regardless of the baying mobs people don't have a right to know what he did, and that includes Bulgers mother.

[pintsofguinness]

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.

[Minder]

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?

[pintsofguinness]

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.

[DennistheMenace]

POG you talk some rubbish.

[red hander]

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

[pintsofguinness]

POG you talk some rubbish.

Fantastic contribution to the discussion, clearly from someone with no intelligence to make a point.

[DennistheMenace]

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.

[pintsofguinness]

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. 

[ziggysego]

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.

[pintsofguinness]

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.

[ziggysego]

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.