James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison

Fighting Irish

scudzilla wrote: »

2 ten year old kids being naughty, in my eyes, is smashing a couple of windows, stealing some sweets, not doing what they did.

I hope they both burn in hell and die an agonizingly painful death, should have nailed the little bastards to a wall when they got them, but no, way too many do-gooders in society today

I feel exactly the same about people who purposely drive around with foglights on when they shouldn't

goat2

I place this wicked act of 2 ten year olds squarley on their upbringing, we learn from our peers, and are corrected from the cradle and told right from wrong, if this is not instilled in us then, what do we become, just wild no boundaries till it is too late

walshb

goat2 wrote: »

I place this wicked act of 2 ten year olds squarley on their upbringing, we learn from our peers, and are corrected from the cradle and told right from wrong, if this is not instilled in us then, what do we become, just wild no boundaries till it is too late

But, I am quite sure that there have been many many kids with similar and even worse upbringings that DID not display that level of depravity. No, this is more than just parenting, schooling, environment, boredom. It's wicked and it's wicked for more reasons than I mentioned.

walshb

walshb wrote: »

But, I am quite sure that there have been many many kids with similar and even worse upbringings that DID not display that level of depravity. No, this is more than just parenting, schooling, environment, boredom. It's wicked and it's wicked for more reasons than I mentioned.

this is a shocking shocking case. try as i might i will never get my head around why children could perform such a shocking cruel and utterly savage act.

while i think justice should be served to these youths i believe it should be served through the courts and not because i believe in the co called system but because i believe that nothing good will come out of people killing in revenge. It is not being a do gooder, just trying to get things into perspective. Someone murders another person, people respond 'string em up', If they get their way then more lives are taken. The point i am trying to make is that overall it is a vicious cycle that will achieve nothing only another show of contempt for human life. despite the bravado im not so sure any good decent person could maintain a clear conscience having taken a human life no matter how tarnished that life is.

nacho libre

nacho libre wrote: »

i suspect no matter what kind of upbringing Ted Bundy had, he'd still have been violent towards women.

how do you know that? it is experiences that shape a human mentality but his experiences could be trivial to some but to others, deemed as disastrous.

redout

Did they find out why he was re-arrested ?

whiteboy

who gives a sh:pac:t

Tiny Explosions

redout wrote: »

Did they find out why he was re-arrested ?

It's being reported this morning that he committed a sexual assault of some kind.

Mint Sauce

redout wrote: »

Did they find out why he was re-arrested ?

different versions of events from simply breaking parole terms, a work place brawl, and a sexual assult, although most stories are emerging from the s*n and daily mail

hopefully details of the arrest and what happened are released after a full investigation , if not to the public, atleast to jamies mother

Nodin

Very badly handled, the whole thing. If he was being taken for an offence as opposed to a breach of the parole terms, they should have said so at the beginning. They've no let wild speculation run on for days before getting their act together. Typical dithering from Straw though.....

hitlersson666

It was a sex crime!!!!!! This is a fucking joke that they let him out

James Bulger killer Jon Venables was taken back into custody in the UK after he was accused of committing a sex crime, it was reported today.

It was initially reported that Venables, 27, was recalled to prison after a fight at work but the Sun reported that was untrue.

It reported it had uncovered the "exact details" of the alleged offence but was unable to publish them in full because it might lead to Venables' new identity being uncovered.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw said the recall to custody involved some "extremely serious allegations" as he prepared to meet Bulger's mother.

Denise Fergus has demanded to know what the convicted murderer did to be sent back to prison and she is expected to meet Mr Straw in the coming days.

Justifying his decision not to disclose details of the recall, Mr Straw said: "Our motivation throughout has been solely to ensure that some extremely serious allegations are properly investigated and that justice is done.

"No-one in this country would want anything other. That is what the authorities remain determined to do."

Venables was released in 2001 on licence with a new identity after serving eight years for the infamous murder of two-year-old James.

He and his friend Robert Thompson were just 10 when they battered the little boy to death in Liverpool.

Venables was recalled to custody last week for breaching his licence terms, which included conditions not to travel to the city or contact his accomplice.

The British government's refusal to give any details of the breach has prompted a storm of press speculation about what he did.

Mr Straw said: "I said on Wednesday that I was unable to give further details of the reasons for Jon Venables' return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so.

"That view was shared by the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

"We all feared that a premature disclosure of information would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process, including the investigation and potential prosecution of individual(s)."

Mrs Fergus, 42, only found out about his recall on Tuesday shortly before the news became public.

She disclosed her torment about being informed by a probation officer, telling the Daily Mail: "I threw question after question at her, but she blocked every one.

"My fear was that he'd hurt another child, or any human being.

"I just don't want anyone else hurt by Venables or Thompson. I wanted to know that he hadn't done to someone else what he did to James and me.

"All kinds of horrible thoughts were going through my head, and they still are because no one will tell me what he's done. It's wrong - as James's mother, I have a right to know."

Venables has reportedly made several trips to the city where he murdered the toddler since being released, despite the ban on him doing so.

He is said to have visited nightclubs and a pop concert in Liverpool and even watched Premier League side Everton at Goodison Park.

The killer is also reported to have worked as a nightclub bouncer.

But Venables has reportedly not visited Bootle, the city district where he and Thompson snatched James 17 years ago and took him off to his death.

There are fears that his recall could see his new identity being discovered because of fellow prisoners' suspicions about special treatment.

In 1993 he and Thompson led James from a shopping centre on a two-mile walk to his death.

They battered the little boy and left his body on a railway track for a train to cut it in two.

The British Prime Minister said that although he understood the public "outrage" surrounding Venables' licence breach, the UK government would not comment on individual cases.

Venables will appear before a Parole Board hearing within 28 days to examine why he was taken back to jail.

A spokesman for the Parole Board said it was likely the result of the hearing would be released because of the high-profile nature of the case.

But the reasons for the recall were unlikely to be made public at this stage, he said.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/bulger-killer-accused-of-sex-crime-448920.html#ixzz0hP7Am007

annabellee77

Think that no way what he did should be revealed until after the court case (assuming there will be one!!) He could easily get off with the whole "prejudiced jury" (and no doubt other "loopholes") He's locked up at present so no danger, should go through the trial, then hopefully get locked away again. For a long time (due to previous if nothing else)

But once that is over it absolutely should be revealed. In full. Plus his identity (though we know thats not gonna happen)

AttackThePoster

No danger

Foxhound38

Before mass hysteria hits boards again, and we have to go to all the trouble of locking up our kids and pets, it is worth remembering that it is the S*n and the Daily Mail reporting this (aka: not historically credible sources of facts). I'm convinced they would report that Venables is in actual fact the genetically engineered hybrid of Adolf Hitler AND Saddam Hussain if they thought it would sell papers, and lets face it - a sex crime story about the two most notorious child killers in recent memory would sell papers!

I'm not saying what he did or didn't do, but until I see information stemming from a more credible source I will save my judgement.

aDeener

venables commits sex crime after being released from prison; hardly much of a shocker..... :rolleyes:

DJ_U4EA

Neither of them should have ever been released or given new identities. Jamie Bulger didn't get a second chance did he?

hitlersson666

goat2 wrote: »

one of the english tabloids, has claimed that he is being brought in on sexual assault,
he had been working for many years as a bouncer, i would have thought there would have been a garda reference to obtain that job

I found it on breaking news so its not just dm

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

"as James's mother, I have a right to know"


How does she come to this conclusion?

goat2

Jack Tender Wharf wrote: »

"as James's mother, I have a right to know"


How does she come to this conclusion?

she has had her heart and her family broken by this person, she has lived every day of her life since then with this awful act on her mind and missing her beautiful son, wondering where those two were, now she has that chance, she should also be told details of the other fellow, thompson

Keano

Jack Tender Wharf wrote: »

"as James's mother, I have a right to know"


How does she come to this conclusion?

Tbh that's what I was thinking. Yes the evil little bástards killed her son but they served the time for that crime and now one of them has been sent back for committing another crime.

Keano

goat2 wrote: »

she has had her heart and her family broken by this person, she has lived every day of her life since then with this awful act on her mind and missing her beautiful son, wondering where those two were, now she has that chance, she should also be told details of the other fellow, thompson

The law and personal sentiment are two completely different things.

passive

goat2 wrote: »

she has had her heart and her family broken by this person, she has lived every day of her life since then with this awful act on her mind and missing her beautiful son, wondering where those two were, now she has that chance, she should also be told details of the other fellow, thompson

You should get a job writing for the Mail.

galwayrush

Jack Tender Wharf wrote: »

"as James's mother, I have a right to know"


How does she come to this conclusion?

err, the sick bastard and his equally sick friend tortured her son in a most horrific way before murdering him.:rolleyes:

Jesus Juice

I remember reading all the details of that case a while back.I nearly vomited after reading all of it.

4zn76tysfajdxp

aDeener wrote: »

venables commits sex crime after being released from prison; hardly much of a shocker..... :rolleyes:

Oh no? I had no idea he had a history of committing sex crimes.

galwayrush

Jesus Juice wrote: »

I remember reading all the details of that case a while back.I nearly vomited after reading all of it.

Same here, the bastards are now suppost to be allowed carry on with their lives in a reasonably normal manner while the victims family carry on with their horrific life sentence of trying to cope with their loss and the manner of it with the full knowledge that the perps are being looked after.

Dan I Am

Deleted User wrote: »

don't forget also, the day the little fellow went missing he was left outside a butchers shop on his own in a busy shopping centre. could his mum not have brought him in? im sorry for her loss and as i said i wouldn't wish it on anyone. no parent deserves that but leaving your kid outside a shop in a busy shopping mall in today's society or even back in 1993 standards is extremely risky.

I think it is unfair to blame the mother in any way at all. She was apparently a very vigilant and almost over protective parent, after having recently lost a child to stillbirth (?or late miscarriage?). The cctv shows that it was hardly a minute between the boy slipping out of the shop unnoticed, and the mother rushing out looking distressed and searching around.

Any parent knows that these things happen occasionally, no matter how vigilant you are. She was just incredibly unlucky when her child slipped out of her sight for a few seconds at a time and place where there just happened to be 2 would be murderers actively looking for a victim, and who instantly led him away.

walshb

As far as I am aware, this story about the batteries and the sexual nature of the crime is not conclusive. It is not officially accpeted by the authorities, so I don't think it should be stated as fact.

Edit: I am not saying that you are stating this, but your "link" is...

Ataxia

Three points:

1. Surely revealing Venables' identity would prejudice his trial, given that everyone wanted to murder him when he was 10? One presumes it's difficult enough to get a fair trial for child porn offences as it is.
2. Why should we listen to what James Bulger's mother wants? This case has nothing to do with her. There's no such thing as a "right to know what he was charged with".
3. To those of you throwing around "he killed a child" as a substitute for rational argument, remember that the right to due process, if it is to mean anything at all, must apply even to the worst monster in the world.

fkt

goat2 wrote: »

she has had her heart and her family broken by this person, she has lived every day of her life since then with this awful act on her mind and missing her beautiful son, wondering where those two were, now she has that chance, she should also be told details of the other fellow, thompson

She knows who they are, where they are and aparently has met one of them face to face.

scudzilla

fkt wrote: »

She knows who they are, where they are and aparently has met one of them face to face.

Bollocks

scudzilla

Ok, they were given new identities because they were 10yrs old, Venables has now fcuked up and is an adult, he should be treated just like every other common criminal and not be allowed to hide behind a 'New Identity'

fkt

scudzilla wrote: »

Bollocks

Thanks for correcting the FACT that I stated.

scudzilla

fkt wrote: »

Thanks for correcting the FACT that I stated.

Prove it's fact and i will remove my bollocks

Ataxia

scudzilla wrote: »

Ok, they were given new identities because they were 10yrs old, Venables has now fcuked up and is an adult, he should be treated just like every other common criminal and not be allowed to hide behind a 'New Identity'

First of all, that isn't how every other criminal who is given a new identity is treated; but more importantly, what exactly will that achieve, apart from satisfying our own curiosity?

scudzilla

Ataxia wrote: »

First of all, that isn't how every other criminal who is given a new identity is treated; but more importantly, what exactly will that achieve, apart from satisfying our own curiosity?

So where will they draw the line? A New identity every time he breaks the law and is caught?

Ataxia

scudzilla wrote: »

So where will they draw the line? A New identity every time he breaks the law and is caught?

If it is necessary to protect him from mobs of vigilantes, then yes, absolutely.

scudzilla

Ataxia wrote: »

If it is necessary to protect him from mobs of vigilantes, then yes, absolutely.

A new full new identity costs in the region of 250,000, or so has been reported in many places over the past week.

So every time this toe rag can't keep his fists down, or his dick in his pants, or stop himself from taking those 'happy' pills, the good old taxpayer has to fork out again?? That's what\s wrong with the world today, too many do-gooders

Ataxia

scudzilla wrote: »

A new full new identity costs in the region of 250,000, or so has been reported in many places over the past week.

So every time this toe rag can't keep his fists down, or his dick in his pants, or stop himself from taking those 'happy' pills, the good old taxpayer has to fork out again?? That's what\s wrong with the world today, too many do-gooders

So your alternative would be to allow him to be murdered?

scudzilla

Ataxia wrote: »

So your alternative would be to allow him to be murdered?

Another alternative would be to keep him locked up until the day he dies, quite simple really

Ataxia

scudzilla wrote: »

Another alternative would be to keep him locked up until the day he dies, quite simple really

The crimes he is accused of aren't serious enough to warrant that (unless you're suggesting he should be punished retroactively for a crime he's already served his time for).

scudzilla

Ataxia wrote: »

The crimes he is accused of aren't serious enough to warrant that (unless you're suggesting he should be punished retroactively for a crime he's already served his time for).

He hasn't actually served his full time, he was sentenced to Her Majesty's pleasure, that can be life, but was released early on strict parole conditions which he has broken, he could therefore be sent back in to continue his original sentence, i think i'm right in saying that.

But if he was crossing the road in front of me, i wouldn't swerve to avoid him

zimovain

Child porn says the sunday Mirror

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/07/jon-venables-sent-back-to-prison-over-child-porn-offence-115875-22090622/

Nodin

....which is odd, because another tabloid said they were blocked from revealing why he was sent back. Why would they block that and then let the other shower leak it out?

Alan_P

zimovain wrote: »

Child porn says the sunday Mirror

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/07/jon-venables-sent-back-to-prison-over-child-porn-offence-115875-22090622/

Oh for god's sake. Go back over this thread and see all the other claims. Within a week someone will claim he's a cannibalistic satinist pedophile.

The people who know anything about this guy have kept the secret since he was released, why does anyone imagine they'll talk to tabloid journalists now?

The 5 or 6 people who are actually aware of the details relating to this case are very senior civil servants who are covered by the Official Secrets Act, and are are licensed to lie to everyone about these guys. These are the UK civil servants who can create "fake" offficial passports, remember.

They will in no circumstances talk to journalists, and they're legally entitled to lie to ministers. If a UK journalist even found out one of their names, and contacted them, that journalist would probably be jailed as an exemplar.

Noone else knows anything about the Bulger killers, and ministers have probably been lied to about the circumstances, because they're not in
the circle of secrecy.

All the tabloid stories are unmitigated bull****,fiction of the highest order.

I'm actually very grown to a suggestion a barrister friend of mine made:- Venables is not in jail at all. His wife found a letter, and had a doubt, and a fake press release was the cheapest way to resolve it. If Venables is in jail, he's clearly not your husband.

AARRRRGH

I think it could be as simple as this

He told somebody who he really is.

dolliemix

Alan_P wrote: »

I'm actually very grown to a suggestion a barrister friend of mine made:- Venables is not in jail at all. His wife found a letter, and had a doubt, and a fake press release was the cheapest way to resolve it. If Venables is in jail, he's clearly not your husband.

While I agree with the rest of your post - this suggestion is just as bad as the tabloid stuff.

It would be hugely insensitive towards Jamie Bulger's mother and father to do such a thing.

Nodin

AARRRRGH wrote: »

I think it could be as simple as this

He told somebody who he really is.

Funny enough....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/07/jon-venables-confessed-identity

AARRRRGH

Amazing how the papers pretend to know the story, but can print it, but tell you enough.
Then the next day the same paper does the same thing but with a different story.
Really shows that they are only guessing and trying to sell papers.

Spore

AARRRRGH wrote: »

Amazing how the papers pretend to know the story, but can print it, but tell you enough.
Then the next day the same paper does the same thing but with a different story.
Really shows that they are only guessing and trying to sell papers.

That's exactly how tabloids operate and we're the mugs that keep them in their bullshit buisness