James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison

Degsy

goat2 wrote: »

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,

Agreed..if you get sexual kicks out of children you're a peadophile..you dont have to be convicted of it.
Likewise you can be an anglophile without ever having been to England..its all in the "phile".

Moomoo1

Noreen1 wrote: »

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

I know all that. But he was never convicted of a sex crime despite those allegations. At any rate since he hadn't hit puberty by the age of 10 in all likelyhood how could it have been sexual?

Moomoo1

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

the important question is: would a (supposedly) rehabilitated sex offender be as likely to commit a crime as an average person (who has never been convicted of such crimes)?

that's the yardstick that parole boards are using. And I don't really see a problem with that.

EDIT: another thing on reoffending is that often two categories of people are lumped together: people who are released by parole boards under careful supervision by the experts and people who reoffend having served their full sentence. I wonder how different the figures on reoffending would be if we just considered the first group...

Im Q

What age were they?, They did'nt really know what they were doing and if they did who's fault is that parents, friends TV. I dont think they decided to kill a child and they were children themselves, No i dont think they are sorry. They dont really know what they were missing out on in jail. Trying to contact the other one, Probably the only friend he ever had. They gona have some quality of life and its societies fault. What they did was wrong, Do you think they deserve pain, Pretty sure they are gona have plenty of it.:):):pac::P

Im Q

Put them all on an island to keep them away from children. Children are of the utmost importance in the end. They made some bad choices but others cant be left at risk either.


Perhaps sport hunting when is starts to get overpopulated cus there's alot of ****ed up people in this world.:):):D;)

D.Q

Im Q wrote: »

Put them all on an island to keep them away from children. Children are of the utmost importance in the end. They made some bad choices but others cant be left at risk either.


Perhaps sport hunting when is starts to get overpopulated cus there's alot of ****ed up people in this world.:):):D;)

Im Q wrote: »

What age were they?, They did'nt really know what they were doing and if they did who's fault is that parents, friends TV. I dont think they decided to kill a child and they were children themselves, No i dont think they are sorry. They dont really know what they were missing out on in jail. Trying to contact the other one, Probably the only friend he ever had. They gona have some quality of life and its societies fault. What they did was wrong, Do you think they deserve pain, Pretty sure they are gona have plenty of it.:):):pac::P

Im genuinely scared of you.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Im Q wrote: »

Put them all on an island to keep them away from children. Children are of the utmost importance in the end. They made some bad choices but others cant be left at risk either.


Perhaps sport hunting when is starts to get overpopulated cus there's alot of ****ed up people in this world.:):):D;)

How do you put someone who is convicted of murder at the age of 10 on an island where there are no children...?

jibblybitsy

well i cant believe i was 8 when this happened and people started treating me as if i was venebles, called a freak by an innocent 8 year old girl just looking for my first kiss. i was stopped on the way to school by parents of a 2/3 year old boy to see how i got on with him, all because i looked like venebles. unbelievable. now im gay but anyone i hung around with had no patience and just wanted to out me. never did get sex. i got prostitutes now and realised sex is not such a big deal. thanks for everything especially after ive had plenty of oppertunities to take advantage of naive girls but decided not to because its against irish law. cheers

CiaranMT

jibblybitsy wrote: »

well i cant believe i was 8 when this happened and people started treating me as if i was venebles, called a freak by an innocent 8 year old girl just looking for my first kiss. i was stopped on the way to school by parents of a 2/3 year old boy to see how i got on with him, all because i looked like venebles. unbelievable. now im gay but anyone i hung around with had no patience and just wanted to out me. never did get sex. i got prostitutes now and realised sex is not such a big deal. thanks for everything especially after ive had plenty of oppertunities to take advantage of naive girls but decided not to because its against irish law. cheers

This is my moment for the 'WTF?!?!' thread.

Kimia

Im Q wrote: »

What age were they?, They did'nt really know what they were doing and if they did who's fault is that parents, friends TV. I dont think they decided to kill a child and they were children themselves, No i dont think they are sorry. They dont really know what they were missing out on in jail. Trying to contact the other one, Probably the only friend he ever had. They gona have some quality of life and its societies fault. What they did was wrong, Do you think they deserve pain, Pretty sure they are gona have plenty of it.:):):pac::P

jibblybitsy wrote: »

well i cant believe i was 8 when this happened and people started treating me as if i was venebles, called a freak by an innocent 8 year old girl just looking for my first kiss. i was stopped on the way to school by parents of a 2/3 year old boy to see how i got on with him, all because i looked like venebles. unbelievable. now im gay but anyone i hung around with had no patience and just wanted to out me. never did get sex. i got prostitutes now and realised sex is not such a big deal. thanks for everything especially after ive had plenty of oppertunities to take advantage of naive girls but decided not to because its against irish law. cheers

Jaysus! :eek::eek:

goat2

jibblybitsy wrote: »

well i cant believe i was 8 when this happened and people started treating me as if i was venebles, called a freak by an innocent 8 year old girl just looking for my first kiss. i was stopped on the way to school by parents of a 2/3 year old boy to see how i got on with him, all because i looked like venebles. unbelievable. now im gay but anyone i hung around with had no patience and just wanted to out me. never did get sex. i got prostitutes now and realised sex is not such a big deal. thanks for everything especially after ive had plenty of oppertunities to take advantage of naive girls but decided not to because its against irish law. cheers

what was that all about

NoDice

jibblybitsy wrote: »

well i cant believe i was 8 when this happened and people started treating me as if i was venebles, called a freak by an innocent 8 year old girl just looking for my first kiss. i was stopped on the way to school by parents of a 2/3 year old boy to see how i got on with him, all because i looked like venebles. unbelievable. now im gay but anyone i hung around with had no patience and just wanted to out me. never did get sex. i got prostitutes now and realised sex is not such a big deal. thanks for everything especially after ive had plenty of oppertunities to take advantage of naive girls but decided not to because its against irish law. cheers

Oh boy... Think we found someone to run ImQ's island..... :eek:

Really interesting thread & arguments until this happened. :eek::eek:

Kimia

There really are some freaks and weirdos out there. Scary stuff. :eek:

AudreyHepburn

jibblybitsy wrote: »

well i cant believe i was 8 when this happened and people started treating me as if i was venebles, called a freak by an innocent 8 year old girl just looking for my first kiss. i was stopped on the way to school by parents of a 2/3 year old boy to see how i got on with him, all because i looked like venebles. unbelievable. now im gay but anyone i hung around with had no patience and just wanted to out me. never did get sex. i got prostitutes now and realised sex is not such a big deal. thanks for everything especially after ive had plenty of oppertunities to take advantage of naive girls but decided not to because its against irish law. cheers

what does this even mean????

Noreen1

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

what does this even mean????

I think it means people gave him a hard time as an 8 year old, because he looked like Venables.

He seems to think people are having a go at him on this thread, as well......

Noreen

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I think it means he's a troll.

jibblybitsy

im just saying its why i went crazy on this thread last week. also i was drunk typical. im going to see a councillor now. thanks

Micky Dolenz

Can we get back on topic please, if not, we are done here.

Thanks

Run_to_da_hills

I guess now they will have to release his identity and give the public a fresh mug shot.

Adios amego for 10 years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/23/jon-venables-pleads-guilty

Biggins

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I guess now they will have to release his identity and give the public a fresh mug shot.

Nope.

The only person that was allowed see his face was the judge in the court.
The Times report a few minutes ago:
(4th Paragraph)

Noreen1

It seems to me that this guy has had ample time to be "rehabilitated" - and chose to continue to engage in morally reprehensible behaviour.

That being the case, I find it incomprehensible that the legal system chooses to continue to protect his privacy, rather than attempt to give the public any opportunity to protect their children.

Justice? Hardly!

Noreen

dan719

Realistically, it will be impossible to protect his identity now. The amount of people he will come into contact with, who can put two and two together and realise who he is, is huge. Not only that, but someone will be quite happy to take a grainy mobile image and sell it to the papers for millions.

WRT Venables, I have no idea how they can ever contemplate releasing him again. He had his chance and he f*cked up. Let him rot.

Biggins

dan719 wrote: »

...but someone will be quite happy to take a grainy mobile image and sell it to the papers for millions...

The British papers won't touch it for they will be breaking the law via a court ban order.
The European and/or world papers won't pay that much, some maybe - but not that much, due to lesser interest.

dan719

Biggins wrote: »

The British papers won't touch it for they will be breaking the law via a court ban order.
The European and/or world papers won't pay that much, some maybe - but not that much, due to lesser interest.

I would happily wager that the Sun would print it and to hell with the consequences.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dan719 wrote: »

I would happily wager that the Sun would print it and to hell with the consequences.

Doubt it. Normally, yes, but I think the consequences would be quiet sevear. That said, he's got going to suffer a vigiliate attack in prison, is he?

dan719

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Doubt it. Normally, yes, but I think the consequences would be quiet sevear. That said, he's got going to suffer a vigiliate attack in prison, is he?

They would have public opinion firmly on their side though. The consequences would be limited simply because any sanction would be stringently opposed by voters.

WRT your second point, yes I assume he will be attacked if he is placed in general population. He'll probably be in solitary for the duration of his sentence.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dan719 wrote: »

They would have public opinion firmly on their side though. The consequences would be limited simply because any sanction would be stringently opposed by voters.

WRT your second point, yes I assume he will be attacked if he is placed in general population. He'll probably be in solitary for the duration of his sentence.

I don't think so. Problem, is, if you're a politician, it's in your interests to limit the tabloids' power. They could be after THEM next. Anyway, the regualtion body, I presume, is not supposed to be politicall interested.

I meant a public vigilate attack, rather than a prison confrontation. Depends on how long he gets, as well, though.

midlandsmissus

Breaking news: - eircom net

Convicted paedophile Jon Venables admitted he thinks of the murder of James Bulger "every day" as he began a two-year jail term today.

The 27-year-old apologised for viewing child abuse images and said he is "genuinely ashamed".

In a statement released by his solicitor, Venables said he will turn his life around and "never go back" after being released at the end of his latest sentence.

Speaking after the hearing, solicitor John Gibson said Venables is "extremely remorseful" and knows he has "badly let down" everyone who has tried to help him.

He said: "He puts forward no excuse for his conduct. He is genuinely ashamed, but he has and continues to express his remorse, and has come to an understanding of how children are harmed by those who have even a passing interest in such material, let alone by those who pass it on."

Speaking about the death of James, Mr Gibson said Venables has accepted responsibility and the consequences will be with him for life.

The solicitor added: "He has said that every day since what took place in 1993 he has thought about how different life might have been for all those affected, who he appreciates have also had their own reasons for reflection."

Mr Gibson said Venables realised that those with whom he has made friends over the eight years under his new identity will be "hurt and angry".

The solicitor said Venables felt like a "canary down a mine" after being released and returning to prison was "something of a relief".

Mr Gibson said the offences were committed at a time when Venables was drinking heavily and suffering from the pressure of his unusual situation.

He said it is to Venables's credit that he has worked since his release, working anti-social hours and earning around the minimum wage.

The solicitor said the killer also apologised to his family who, "despite their obvious and justified disappointment in him", continue to support him.

He said Venables found the passage of time after he was released from prison did not blunt his "frustrations and unhappiness".

Mr Gibson said: "He says that he appreciates there was no blueprint available to him, or those offering him support - he felt like a canary down a mine.

"The return to prison was something of a relief when it came. He intends to learn lessons to help him face this challenge again.

"Jon Venables knows that there are real victims to these crimes. Insofar as he can, he extends his sincere apologies to those children who have been exploited and abused.

"He accepts that a prison sentence is justified, and that once his time is served, his release is not, and cannot be, a formality or matter of routine.

"He is determined now, once and for all, to become the person he wishes to be so that when he is eventually released from prison, he will never go back."

dan719

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I don't think so. Problem, is, if you're a politician, it's in your interests to limit the tabloids' power. They could be after THEM next. Anyway, the regualtion body, I presume, is not supposed to be politicall interested.

I meant a public vigilate attack, rather than a prison confrontation. Depends on how long he gets, as well, though.

I agree with you that it shouldn't be, but it is.

Sorry I misunderstood your post. Yeah, I assume that he would be attacked by members of the public. A Liverpool paper offered a reward for information on them both when they were released didn't it?

Noreen1

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Breaking news: - eircom net


The solicitor said Venables felt like a "canary down a mine" after being released and returning to prison was "something of a relief".

If that were true, there would be a case to be made for keeping him locked up, for life! Win-win situation, really!
Why do I think sentencing wont reflect that train of thought, though?
Hmmm..........


Noreen

xxchloexx

At the trial it was established that at this location, one of the boys threw blue Humbrol modelling paint into Bulger's left eye. They kicked him and hit him with bricks, stones and a 22-pound (10.0 kg) iron bar, described in court as a railway fishplate.They placed batteries in his mouth. Bulger suffered ten skull fractures as a result of the iron bar striking his head. Alan Williams, the case's pathologist, speculated that Bulger suffered so many injuries that none could be isolated as the fatal blow. 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.When questioned about this aspect of the attack by detectives and the child psychiatrist Eileen Vizard, Thompson and Venables were reluctant to give details.
Before they left him, the boys laid Bulger across the railway tracks and weighted his head down with rubble, in the hope that a train would hit him and make his death appear to be an accident. After Bulger's killers left the scene, his body was cut in half by a train. Bulger's severed body was discovered two days later, on 14 February. A forensic pathologist testified that he had died before he was struck by the train

Just read this on wikipedia and honestly i broke down crying , i cannot understand how two 10 year olds could have so much evil in them to do this , they should never be released , let them rot in jail and suffer ... absoloute scum of the earth!

sunflower27

xxchloexx wrote: »

Just read this on wikipedia and honestly i broke down crying , i cannot understand how two 10 year olds could have so much evil in them to do this , they should never be released , let them rot in jail and suffer ... absoloute scum of the earth!

I agree xxchloexx. It's unthinkable that two 10-year-olds could think of doing these horrendous things, let alone actually doing them.

effing bastards.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dan719 wrote: »

I agree with you that it shouldn't be, but it is.

Sorry I misunderstood your post. Yeah, I assume that he would be attacked by members of the public. A Liverpool paper offered a reward for information on them both when they were released didn't it?

Would surprise me, given Liverpool's history with the Sun.

Our man in Havana

He should never get out. But sadly he will get the same treatment as Huntley, locked up away from the general prison population. I am sure he would be dealt with summarily by the regular prisoners.

Run_to_da_hills

He has already done nearly 5 months in custody, I gather this will be taken into consideration so he will be out in a little over 19 months.

He will also have tobe put on a sex offenders register so he will now be a marked man where ever he moves to.

Noreen1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

He has already done nearly 5 months in custody, I gather this will be taken into consideration so he will be out in a little over 19 months.

He will also have tobe put on a sex offenders register so he will now be a marked man where ever he moves to.

Marked by who? Since his safety is (apparently) more important than that of the general public, it is extremely unlikely that his identity will ever be revealed.

Noreen

Run_to_da_hills

Noreen1 wrote: »

Marked by who? Since his safety is (apparently) more important than that of the general public, it is extremely unlikely that his identity will ever be revealed.

Noreen

People will soon enough suss it, those that was close to him since his relocation and changed identity will see the two year gap and figure it out.

K-9

Noreen1 wrote: »

Marked by who? Since his safety is (apparently) more important than that of the general public, it is extremely unlikely that his identity will ever be revealed.

Noreen

I think it is more about the public saving them from themselves, rather than saving him.

Biggins

Times Article posted on their website one minute ago:

Bulger killer posed as paedophile mother

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/2172/wwwthetimescoukttonewsu.jpg
http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/2172/wwwthetimescoukttonewsu.jpg

Jon Venables, 27, one of the boys who tortured and murdered the toddler James Bulger in 1993, made contact with a paedophile on the internet and posed as a mother willing to let her child be abused in exchange for indecent images. He was said to be ‘relieved’ to be back in prison

galwayrush

Biggins wrote: »

Times Article posted on their website one minute ago:

Bulger killer posed as paedophile mother

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/2172/wwwthetimescoukttonewsu.jpg
http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/2172/wwwthetimescoukttonewsu.jpg

A vile piece of **** with nothing good to offer society, hope he has a painful accident in prison.What a waste of money keeing him alive.

i just dont understand why the courts and society as a whole cannot accept that some people are just pure evil they cannot be helped or rehabilitated or changed this complete c**t is case in point.

amacachi

Ah I'm sure he'll learn his lesson this time and be a good boy next time he gets out.

Prison is too good for him :mad:

No amount of help or rehabilitation will every change him, he's pure evil, people like these don't deserve to have tax payers money wasted on them.

Noreen1

amacachi wrote: »

Ah I'm sure he'll learn his lesson this time and be a good boy next time he gets out.

Let's see.........
He didn't learn anything when he was charged with public disorder, nor when he was charged with possession of cocaine.
He went on to get involved with child pornography, but now he's going to be a good boy? Ehh, I don't think so!

Noreen

Biggins

Now apparently, they want to spend £250,000 approx for a new ID for him!
More madness.

caseyann

xxchloexx wrote: »

Just read this on wikipedia and honestly i broke down crying , i cannot understand how two 10 year olds could have so much evil in them to do this , they should never be released , let them rot in jail and suffer ... absoloute scum of the earth!

I cant read that,i had enough nightmares and every child i saw with blond hair around that time made me cry thinking of how that baby died always the image of him on the slide my nephew was the same age as him blond hair blue eyes when this happened.
They show signs of what serial killers show at young ages.Hurting animals and weaker then them.
Locked up key thrown away.

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

Now apparently, they want to spend £250,000 approx for a new ID for him!
More madness.

Madness is right, money wasted altogether that could be spent on far more constructive things. Why are they bothering so much on him is what I'd like to know, and talk about rubbing it in the face of James Bulgers family.

This guy needs to be locked up for life and his identity made public.

JP Liz V1

Anyone see the programme on TV3 last night about Jamie's murder?

mojesius

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Anyone see the programme on TV3 last night about Jamie's murder?

Yeah, I found it really tough to watch. When they were talking about the initial interviews, you could see how everyone involved in this case was still so deeply affected by it.

caseyann

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Anyone see the programme on TV3 last night about Jamie's murder?

Yeah it definitely still hits the heart and brings Tears.Looking at the two of them as kids and thinking how does that happen.