James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison

feelingstressed

feelingstressed wrote: »

It could be a sentence in a mental institution where he can get the help he needs

He's beyond any help, he should be locked up for the rest of his life.

Lorri_L

feelingstressed wrote: »

A sentence in jail probably isn't the solution here.

It could be a sentence in a mental institution where he can get the help he needs and this be given by the judge if he gets convicted again over this

A sentence in jail in which he is housed with regular criminals (not paedophiles) and they'll have a solution quickly enough.

Dancor

Lorri_L wrote: »

A sentence in jail in which he is housed with regular criminals (not paedophiles) and they'll have a solution quickly enough.

I hope they are boiling the water for him now. Dirty fcuker.

goat2

Noreen1 wrote: »

Well, he had his chance, and he blew it! This time, I hope they lock him up for life. It's quite clear that he has not been rehabilitated - and questions need to be asked about the people/psychological theory who state that people have been "reformed" - and thus put other people at risk.

It seems clear to me that some people are so damaged by their experiences that they will never be rehabilitated - and therefore should not be free to destroy other lives at will.

The solution may or may not be life imprisonment - but if it's true that a large percentage of people who are abused go on to become abusers, then releasing these people back into the community only serves to maximise the problem for future generations...

An Alcatraz for child abusers springs to mind... complete with as many psychiatrists as they want/need. Actually, give them gainful employment, recreation - whatever - just keep them far, far away from kids.:mad:

It would probably also work out cheaper at the end of the day!

Noreen

we will soon find out where he has been for the last number of yrs, could have been one of our neighbours

The Cool

True, I think one of them is supposedly in Ireland somewhere. Connacht, I think.

A plumber that came to work in our house said that he had been on a call out in the North somewhere and recognised the woman as Maxine Carr, Ian Huntley's accomplice in the Soham murders.

Just goes to show, you don't know who's in your town.

BigBrownBear

The Cool wrote: »

True, I think one of them is supposedly in Ireland somewhere. Connacht, I think.

A plumber that came to work in our house said that he had been on a call out in the North somewhere and recognised the woman as Maxine Carr, Ian Huntley's accomplice in the Soham murders.

Maxine Carr is most likely unrecognisable today and there's probably been scores of 'sightings'in the same way as there has been Madeline McCann 'sightings'

Dazd_N_Confusd

minidazzler wrote: »

What he did was horrible, but he was a fcuking child when he did it.

Noone here knows if he is a scumbag now. He might have done feck all to get recalled. Irish prisoners who get Temproary release are supposed to stay sober, maybe it's the same for him and he happened to have a few drinks?

Unless it's released why he was recalled to prison, then people really shouldn't call for his death, or take delight in it.

I am FAR from a liberal person with regard to criminals, but he was a child when he did it. He probably is reformed.

I usually wouldn't agree with a statement like this and would say something irrational like 'shoot the ****er' but I did recently watch 'Boy A' so I'm reluctant to jump to conclusions.

goat2

he had gotten a great chance to make it in life, instead he wrecked it for himself and his family.
do they know if he had participated in some of these images

Magenta

feelingstressed wrote: »

A sentence in jail probably isn't the solution here.

It could be a sentence in a mental institution where he can get the help he needs and this be given by the judge if he gets convicted again over this

Oh for God's sake, how much more "help" in institutions do you think he should get? He already had years and years of it and it clearly had no effect!
The man is a sadist, a psychopath and a murderer, he has had his chance and does not deserve ANY more namby-pamby "treatment"!!!

Magenta

feelingstressed wrote: »

A 3rd chance maybe, shoot me down so

Is there no rehabilitation in the justice system?
I agree he got a new identity and a new beginning and a fantastic opportunity to start his life afresh

Now he has been charged with a child pornography charge but not convicted. Even if he on parole what happened in 1993 was a separate crime, he served his time and was released. Released after the European Courts stepped in.

A new trial will happen in the next few months, if he's guilty he'll be convicted again and back to jail so.
My only point was maybe a mental institution with medical help may be more appropriate, even if he gets locked in a padded cell for the rest of his days. He won't last in prison, the other prisoners (honour among thieves :rolleyes:) will have him scalded in boiling water ( a la Ian Huntley) or worse within days, he would need special protection.

Sure look at the case in Co. Clare where a man shot a parish priest and a mother, how long did he last in jail. Lock him up for life but jail solves nothing

He has already had years of psychiatric therapy. "Separate crimes"? So you think that what happened in 1993 should just be swept under the carpet because he "did his time"?

Moomoo1

I'd be surprirsed if there's a fullblown trial.

most likely there will be a plea bargain and he'll get whatever the standard sentence for child porn is plus a much longer sentence for breaking parole conditions.

Unlikely to be >10 years in total.

Butch Cassidy

feelingstressed wrote: »

The tabloid media are just going to cause a mistrial if they carry on

Not if the tabloid internet doesn't do it first.

D'Agger

Dazd_N_Confusd wrote: »

I did recently watch 'Boy A' so I'm reluctant to jump to conclusions.

Great movie imo - gave me a different type of perspective on this case has to be said

sunflower27

The James Bolger story is one I'll never forget. I remember being truly horrified at the time and all these years on it still sickens me beyond belief. That footage of the two boys leading him away holding his hand breaks my heart.

Years later I was living in England and got into a mad debate about it all. I said then and am still convinced that those children are evil. It's one thing to hit another child or steal their toys/bike whatever. But what they did and at such a young age is unfathomable in my mind. How often do we hear stories like poor little James being brutalised and tortured by other children - very very rare. I can maybe count a few cases over the last 15 years.

Evil to the core. I know some people say no child is born evil. I'm sure there is a chemical imbalance going on with this pr1ck that led them to premediatate and carry out such brutality at such a young age.

I remember my colleagues saying 'ah but he was a child'. Yeah, whatever. Evil little sh1t. Children don't torture and murder other children.

I hope to God they do find out who he is in prison. He's been 'protected' enough and look where that's got him :mad:

bonerm

PaulieC wrote: »

Great movie imo - gave me a different type of perspective on this case has to be said

Agreed. Boy A is well worth a watch if you are interested in this particular news story.

Moomoo1

sunflower27 wrote: »

I remember my colleagues saying 'ah but he was a child'. Yeah, whatever. Evil little sh1t. Children don't torture and murder other children.

you are wrong. Have a read of this - from some who's grown up in the sort of envioronment that JV grew up in

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n05/ohag01_.html

AudreyHepburn

While I believe that very few people, if any, are inherintly evil and a bad childhood can have or a detrimental effect on them as an adult there is no excuse for what those two boys did to poor James.

A crappy childhood does not entitled you to do horrible things to other people. It's like the excuse people sometimes give that because a child molester was abused as a child his or her crimes aren't quite so bad.

I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. While I'm not so bloody minded that I'd call for Venables and the other one(the name escapes me) to be kill I do think they should have stayed locked up.

Children or not there's no way they could thought what they were doing was ok.

rovert

Thread actually needs more rabble, rabble.

splashthecash

JV has been convicted of holding and distributing child pornography....back to jail he goes...rot in jail scumbag

AudreyHepburn

splashthecash wrote: »

JV has been convicted of holding and distributing child pornography....back to jail he goes...rot in jail scumbag

Source please?

I'm not saying you're wrong but if you are going accuse people of things like that you should give some that what you read/heard was accurate.

Dyr

bonerm wrote: »

Agreed. Boy A is well worth a watch if you are interested in this particular news story.

Is it not a work of fiction? If so, why is it relevent to this case? Sounds a bit like deciding that the penal system requires reform just because you watched The Shawshank Redemption. :pac:

smilerxxx

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Source please?

I'm not saying you're wrong but if you are going accuse people of things like that you should give some that what you read/heard was accurate.

Go look on www.skynews.com. Story broke yesterday. Or read the previous posts. Page 36/37 shows the storing breaking

Magenta

splashthecash wrote: »

JV has been convicted of holding and distributing child pornography....back to jail he goes...rot in jail scumbag

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Source please?

I'm not saying you're wrong but if you are going accuse people of things like that you should give some that what you read/heard was accurate.

smilerxxx wrote: »

Go look on www.skynews.com. Story broke yesterday. Or read the previous posts. Page 36/37 shows the storing breaking

Splashthecash, he has been charged, not convicted. Know what you are talking about.

splashthecash

Was just about to post that he has only been charged, my mistake. On the radio this morning on Today FM I was sure that the said he had been convicted.

Magneta - I'm in work and don't have the time to put up to minute revisions. How about you settle down!

JP Liz V1

Jon Venables, one of the killers of toddler James Bulger who was released from a life jail term with a new identity, has been charged with downloading and distributing 57 images of child pornography.

A High Court injunction imposed last month that banned the reporting of the charges was lifted yesterday at the Old Bailey after representations from The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers.

Venables, 27, is accused of downloading the indecent photographs between February last year and February this year, while he was on licence.

He is also charged with distributing seven indecent images of children between Feb 1 and 23 this year. He was returned to prison in February for allegedly breaching the conditions of his release.

Venables is due to face a plea and case management hearing on July 23, when he is expected to appear by prison videolink. An order bans the identification of his assumed name, his address at the time, where he is held, or what he now looks like.

Venables and Robert Thompson were found guilty of the abduction and murder of two-year-old James in February 1993. A CCTV camera captured the toddler being led away by the 10-year-old boys from a shopping centre in Merseyside. Later he was bludgeoned to death on a railway line. The pair were jailed for life, but released eight years later on licence in 2001, and given new identities, which cannot be revealed.

Last night Denise Fergus, James Bulger's mother, welcomed the decision to lift some of secrecy surrounding the fresh charges against her son's killer and said she "simply wants to see justice done".

"My solicitor has been in touch with the Ministry of Justice, to make representations on my behalf, and to raise a number of concerns that I have about the way the case is going to be handled," she said. "We are still awaiting a reply to that formal approach.

"I simply want to see justice done in this case and I don't want to say anything that could affect the proceedings. I'm prepared to wait and see what happens."

Speaking outside court, Robin Makin, a lawyer representing James's father, Ralph Bulger, said that the charges would "inevitably raise further speculation about the murder of James" and added that there would be "incredibly distressing" times ahead for the family.

In March Jack Straw, then the justice secretary, promised a full investigation into Venables's supervision after his release but refused to divulge further details about the case.

Mr Makin said James's father had been frustrated by the failure to receive "any effective and useful support from the public authorities since it was revealed that Jon Venables had been recalled to custody."

He said issues had been raised with the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General, Cabinet Secretary and the Information Commissioner. He added: "We now hope steps will be taken to readdress the enormous deficiencies of the public authorities that have occurred to date."


Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/world/Bulger+killer+charged+with+child+porn+crimes/3185511/story.html#ixzz0raeXCDWQ

Bluefoam

Please don't type in black. I can't read it.

goat2

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Source please?

I'm not saying you're wrong but if you are going accuse people of things like that you should give some that what you read/heard was accurate.

sky news being the source, he must be evil, after all he spent 10 yrs in jail for the murder of a child, then he come out and start all over again doing evil against children, bad to the core

Magenta

splashthecash wrote: »

Magneta - I'm in work and don't have the time to put up to minute revisions. How about you settle down!

As AudreyHepburn already said, if you are going to talk about something like this, at least get your facts right, there's a pretty big difference between a charge and a conviction.

goat2

Magenta wrote: »

As AudreyHepburn already said, if you are going to talk about something like this, at least get your facts right, there's a pretty big difference between a charge and a conviction.

they have never been wrong about anyone the charged with this crime so far, and another thing, they would not have put themselves out there about it unless they are certain, as it would not look good

Butch Cassidy

splashthecash wrote: »

JV has been convicted of holding and distributing child pornography....back to jail he goes...rot in jail scumbag

After Hours, bringing you all yisser court reports since 1998....

Magenta

goat2 wrote: »

they have never been wrong about anyone the charged with this crime so far, and another thing, they would not have put themselves out there about it unless they are certain, as it would not look good

What are you talking about? He has not been convicted.

Noreen1

goat2 wrote: »

we will soon find out where he has been for the last number of yrs, could have been one of our neighbours

Exactly - the trouble is - he is not fit to be anyone's neighbour.
I honestly think it is time for the general public to demand a solution that actually works to protect the public from paedophiles. Fair enough - some of them have had horrendous lives, and their actions are as a result of that - but that does not mean that some innocent child has to pay the price for that.

I'm not sure that prison is the best place for these people - maybe a secure psychiatric unit is? What I do know is that the place for these people is not on the streets, free to harm defenceless children at will.

Noreen

Moomoo1

Noreen1 wrote: »

Exactly - the trouble is - he is not fit to be anyone's neighbour.
I honestly think it is time for the general public to demand a solution that actually works to protect the public from paedophiles. Fair enough - some of them have had horrendous lives, and their actions are as a result of that - but that does not mean that some innocent child has to pay the price for that.

I'm not sure that prison is the best place for these people - maybe a secure psychiatric unit is? What I do know is that the place for these people is not on the streets, free to harm defenceless children at will.

Noreen

how is this relevant? JV wasn't a paedophile, since he was never convicted of a sex crime?

goat2

Magenta wrote: »

What are you talking about? He has not been convicted.

i dont remember using the word convicted, thank you

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

Exactly - the trouble is - he is not fit to be anyone's neighbour.
I honestly think it is time for the general public to demand a solution that actually works to protect the public from paedophiles. Fair enough - some of them have had horrendous lives, and their actions are as a result of that - but that does not mean that some innocent child has to pay the price for that.

I'm not sure that prison is the best place for these people - maybe a secure psychiatric unit is? What I do know is that the place for these people is not on the streets, free to harm defenceless children at will.

Noreen

Is there that many cases of them harming defenceless children at will though, especially in Ireland?

It tends to be family members or known acquaintances that are the main risk category, which you'll probably either be aware of their history, or they will not have been convicted, so nobody would have a clue anyway.

goat2

was it little girls or boys this jon venables had images of, since he was into distribution, i think he should be questioned if he know the whereabouts of the likes of maddie mccanne and other missing children

K-9

goat2 wrote: »

was it little girls or boys this jon venables had images of, since he was into distribution, i think he should be questioned if he know the whereabouts of the likes of maddie mccanne and other missing children

How would he know? The charges seem to be about distributing child porn, not the actual filming of it.

Eoin

goat2 wrote: »

was it little girls or boys this jon venables had images of, since he was into distribution, i think he should be questioned if he know the whereabouts of the likes of maddie mccanne and other missing children

No, the "distribution" is because it looks like he was downloading the images using a peer to peer program. That meant some people downloaded pictures from his computer; therefore the distribution.

Butch Cassidy

goat2 wrote: »

was it little girls or boys this jon venables had images of, since he was into distribution, i think he should be questioned if he know the whereabouts of the likes of maddie mccanne and other missing children

Madeleine McCann is working undercover at the "Madeleine Express" spinning all them news headlines about where she's hiding. Or maybe Venebles does know where she is. Probably met her in a pub in Portugal.:rolleyes:

Pretty_Pistol

His hearing is suppose to be on July 23rd. Why would they give the date out? Wouldn't jurors of cases on the 23rd of July dealing with a man aged 27 charged with having child porn cop on to who it is if they read the papers and watch the news?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

goat2 wrote: »

was it little girls or boys this jon venables had images of, since he was into distribution, i think he should be questioned if he know the whereabouts of the likes of maddie mccanne and other missing children

He should also he questioned as to the whereabouts of Shergar. Harrumph.

AudreyHepburn

Moomoo1 wrote: »

how is this relevant? JV wasn't a paedophile, since he was never convicted of a sex crime?

A paedophile is some-one who is sexually attracted to children but hasn't acted on it.

Venables was, according to reports, in possession of child pornography therefore he finds children attractive sexually thus he is a paedophile.

If he had acted on it then he would be a Child Molester. But as you say has been charged with any sex crime so he is not a Molester.

Not that that makes him any better a person of course!

Noreen1

Moomoo1 wrote: »

how is this relevant? JV wasn't a paedophile, since he was never convicted of a sex crime?

No, he wasn't convicted of a sex crime, but there was certainly a question about sexual motivation:

Police suspected that there was a sexual element to the crime, since  Bulger's shoes, stockings, trousers and underpants had been removed. The  pathologist's report read out in court stated that Bulger's foreskin  had been manipulated.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger#cite_note-pathologist-23"][24][/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger#cite_note-pathologist2-18"][19][/URL]  When questioned about this aspect of the attack by detectives and the  child psychiatrist Eileen Vizard, Thompson and Venables were reluctant  to give details.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger#cite_note-trutv_5-24"][25][/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger#cite_note-trutv_6-14"][15][/URL]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

Venables hasn't been convicted of a sex crime yet, either - but I'll be very surprised if the police don't have what they consider to be a watertight case, before allowing the details to be made public.

Noreen

Noreen1

K-9 wrote: »

Is there that many cases of them harming defenceless children at will though, especially in Ireland?

It tends to be family members or known acquaintances that are the main risk category, which you'll probably either be aware of their history, or they will not have been convicted, so nobody would have a clue anyway.

Good question! The trouble is, since these guys identities are protected - so it will prove very difficult to obtain proof, either way. In addition, there is the question of whether re-conviction rates are necessarily a good indicator of re-offending rates - they are not necessarily the same!

However, if there is one thing we should have learned from the abuse scandals in Ireland, it is that, despite many paedophiles being sent for Counselling, and being declared "no longer a threat to Children" - many of them went on to abuse other children - sometimes for decades!:eek::mad::mad:

This would suggest to me, given our own sad history of abuse, that some people are either, A: So scarred by their own life experience, or B: Just plain evil, that they cannot be rehabilitated - indeed, may not want to be rehabilitated.

The question is - what do we do with them - since "expert" opinion has been proved to be questionable at times?

Noreen

goat2

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

A paedophile is some-one who is sexually attracted to children but hasn't acted on it.

Venables was, according to reports, in possession of child pornography therefore he finds children attractive sexually thus he is a paedophile.

If he had acted on it then he would be a Child Molester. But as you say has been charged with any sex crime so he is not a Molester.

Not that that makes him any better a person of course!

my fear now would be, that this person could have had access to children, living near school, neighbours whatever, and as we do not know his false name yet, his neighbours may be unaware of his past, they are still using jon v yet since leaving jail, he has not been known by that name

ZANKOU

Noreen1 wrote: »

Good question! The trouble is, since these guys identities are protected - so it will prove very difficult to obtain proof, either way. In addition, there is the question of whether re-conviction rates are necessarily a good indicator of re-offending rates - they are not necessarily the same!

However, if there is one thing we should have learned from the abuse scandals in Ireland, it is that, despite many paedophiles being sent for Counselling, and being declared "no longer a threat to Children" - many of them went on to abuse other children - sometimes for decades!:eek::mad::mad:

This would suggest to me, given our own sad history of abuse, that some people are either, A: So scarred by their own life experience, or B: Just plain evil, that they cannot be rehabilitated - indeed, may not want to be rehabilitated.

The question is - what do we do with them - since "expert" opinion has been proved to be questionable at times?

Noreen

what to do? i think hes / thier balls should be dropped into a vice and every day it gets tightened up a few mm, tar'd and feathered while getting a lash of a whip for every year of the childslife they hurted. and at the end of the day get a traffic cone and shove it up there a*se. repeted every day. a person that could harm a child just gets me so mad as you prob can tell

ctrl-alt-delete

ZANKOU wrote: »

what to do? i think hes / thier balls should be dropped into a vice and every day it gets tightened up a few mm, tar'd and feathered while getting a lash of a whip for every year of the childslife they hurted. and at the end of the day get a traffic cone and shove it up there a*se. repeted every day. a person that could harm a child just gets me so mad as you prob can tell

There are some out there who wouldn't think that was a punishment

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

Good question! The trouble is, since these guys identities are protected - so it will prove very difficult to obtain proof, either way. In addition, there is the question of whether re-conviction rates are necessarily a good indicator of re-offending rates - they are not necessarily the same!

However, if there is one thing we should have learned from the abuse scandals in Ireland, it is that, despite many paedophiles being sent for Counselling, and being declared "no longer a threat to Children" - many of them went on to abuse other children - sometimes for decades!:eek::mad::mad:

This would suggest to me, given our own sad history of abuse, that some people are either, A: So scarred by their own life experience, or B: Just plain evil, that they cannot be rehabilitated - indeed, may not want to be rehabilitated.

The question is - what do we do with them - since "expert" opinion has been proved to be questionable at times?

Noreen

I'd hope our counselling services now are slightly more advanced than those of the Catholic Church back in the day!

There is a sex offenders list for the Guards. It isn't perfect but again for me, it goes back to how many attacks have happened by paedophiles out of the blue, at will? Very, very few. The nature of the crime makes people very sensitive about it and rightly so. Problem is, the media prey on the fears for publicity and readership figures.

Again, you are at far higher risk from a family member, acquaintance or respected figure, rather than strangers.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Noreen1 wrote: »

Good question! The trouble is, since these guys identities are protected - so it will prove very difficult to obtain proof, either way. In addition, there is the question of whether re-conviction rates are necessarily a good indicator of re-offending rates - they are not necessarily the same!

However, if there is one thing we should have learned from the abuse scandals in Ireland, it is that, despite many paedophiles being sent for Counselling, and being declared "no longer a threat to Children" - many of them went on to abuse other children - sometimes for decades!:eek::mad::mad:

This would suggest to me, given our own sad history of abuse, that some people are either, A: So scarred by their own life experience, or B: Just plain evil, that they cannot be rehabilitated - indeed, may not want to be rehabilitated.

The question is - what do we do with them - since "expert" opinion has been proved to be questionable at times?

Noreen

Source on the bold bit? And it better not be the RCC

ZANKOU wrote: »

what to do? i think hes / thier balls should be dropped into a vice and every day it gets tightened up a few mm, tar'd and feathered while getting a lash of a whip for every year of the childslife they hurted. and at the end of the day get a traffic cone and shove it up there a*se. repeted every day. a person that could harm a child just gets me so mad as you prob can tell

Itchy and Scratchy forum --->

goat2

Moomoo1 wrote: »

how is this relevant? JV wasn't a paedophile, since he was never convicted of a sex crime?

i would call a person who order indecent images and pass them on a paedophile, as if there were not demand for this vile trade the children in the images may not have violated,